'My kidneys, my choice, decision aid': supporting shared decision making.

PubMed

Fortnum, Debbie; Smolonogov, Tatiana; Walker, Rachael; Kairaitis, Luke; Pugh, Debbie

2015-06-01

For patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are progressing to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) a decision of whether to undertake dialysis or conservative care is a critical component of the patient journey. Shared decision making for complex decisions such as this could be enhanced by a decision aid, a practice which is well utilised in other disciplines but limited for nephrology. A multidisciplinary team in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) utilised current decision-making theory and best practice to develop the 'My Kidneys, My Choice', a decision aid for the treatment of kidney disease. A patient-centred, five-sectioned tool is now complete and freely available to all ANZ units to support the ESKD education and shared decision-making process. Distribution and education have occurred across ANZ and evaluation of the decision aid in practice is in the first phase. Development of a new tool such as an ESKD decision aid requires vision, multidisciplinary input and ongoing implementation resources. This tool is being integrated into ANZ, ESKD education practice and is promoting the philosophy of shared decision making. © 2014 European Dialysis and Transplant Nurses Association/European Renal Care Association.

Shared Decision-Making in the Management of Congenital Vascular Malformations.

PubMed

Horbach, Sophie E R; Ubbink, Dirk T; Stubenrouch, Fabienne E; Koelemay, Mark J W; van der Vleuten, Carine J M; Verhoeven, Bas H; Reekers, Jim A; Schultze Kool, Leo J; van der Horst, Chantal M A M

2017-03-01

In shared decision-making, clinicians and patients arrive at a joint treatment decision, by incorporating best available evidence and the patients' personal values and preferences. Little is known about the role of shared decision-making in managing patients with congenital vascular malformations, for which preference-sensitive decision-making seems obvious. The authors investigated preferences regarding decision-making and current shared decision-making behavior during physician-patient encounters. In two Dutch university hospitals, adults and children with congenital vascular malformations facing a treatment-related decision were enrolled. Before the consultation, patients (or parents of children) expressed their preference regarding decision-making (Control Preferences Scale). Afterward, participants completed shared decision-making-specific questionnaires (nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire, CollaboRATE, and satisfaction), and physicians completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician questionnaire. Consultations were audiotaped and patient involvement was scored by two independent researchers using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement instrument. All questionnaire results were expressed on a scale of 0 to 100 (optimum shared decision-making). Fifty-five participants (24 parents and 31 adult patients) were included. Two-thirds preferred the shared decision-making approach (Control Preferences Scale). Objective five-item Observing Patient Involvement scores were low (mean ± SD, 31 ± 15), whereas patient and physician Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire scores were high, with means of 68 ± 18 and 68 ± 19, respectively. The median CollaboRATE score was 93. There was no clear relationship between shared decision-making and satisfaction scores. Although adults and parents of children with vascular malformations express a strong desire for shared decision-making, objective shared decision-making behavior is still lacking, most

Navigating the Decision Space: Shared Medical Decision Making as Distributed Cognition.

PubMed

Lippa, Katherine D; Feufel, Markus A; Robinson, F Eric; Shalin, Valerie L

2017-06-01

Despite increasing prominence, little is known about the cognitive processes underlying shared decision making. To investigate these processes, we conceptualize shared decision making as a form of distributed cognition. We introduce a Decision Space Model to identify physical and social influences on decision making. Using field observations and interviews, we demonstrate that patients and physicians in both acute and chronic care consider these influences when identifying the need for a decision, searching for decision parameters, making actionable decisions Based on the distribution of access to information and actions, we then identify four related patterns: physician dominated; physician-defined, patient-made; patient-defined, physician-made; and patient-dominated decisions. Results suggests that (a) decision making is necessarily distributed between physicians and patients, (b) differential access to information and action over time requires participants to transform a distributed task into a shared decision, and (c) adverse outcomes may result from failures to integrate physician and patient reasoning. Our analysis unifies disparate findings in the medical decision-making literature and has implications for improving care and medical training.

Shared clinical decision making

PubMed Central

AlHaqwi, Ali I.; AlDrees, Turki M.; AlRumayyan, Ahmad; AlFarhan, Ali I.; Alotaibi, Sultan S.; AlKhashan, Hesham I.; Badri, Motasim

2015-01-01

Objectives: To determine preferences of patients regarding their involvement in the clinical decision making process and the related factors in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in a major family practice center in King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between March and May 2012. Multivariate multinomial regression models were fitted to identify factors associated with patients preferences. Results: The study included 236 participants. The most preferred decision-making style was shared decision-making (57%), followed by paternalistic (28%), and informed consumerism (14%). The preference for shared clinical decision making was significantly higher among male patients and those with higher level of education, whereas paternalism was significantly higher among older patients and those with chronic health conditions, and consumerism was significantly higher in younger age groups. In multivariate multinomial regression analysis, compared with the shared group, the consumerism group were more likely to be female [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) =2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-6.27, p=0.008] and non-dyslipidemic (AOR=2.90, 95% CI: 1.03-8.09, p=0.04), and the paternalism group were more likely to be older (AOR=1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05, p=0.04), and female (AOR=2.47, 95% CI: 1.32-4.06, p=0.008). Conclusion: Preferences of patients for involvement in the clinical decision-making varied considerably. In our setting, underlying factors that influence these preferences identified in this study should be considered and tailored individually to achieve optimal treatment outcomes. PMID:26620990

Consultant psychiatrists’ experiences of and attitudes towards shared decision making in antipsychotic prescribing, a qualitative study

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background Shared decision making represents a clinical consultation model where both clinician and service user are conceptualised as experts; information is shared bilaterally and joint treatment decisions are reached. Little previous research has been conducted to assess experience of this model in psychiatric practice. The current project therefore sought to explore the attitudes and experiences of consultant psychiatrists relating to shared decision making in the prescribing of antipsychotic medications. Methods A qualitative research design allowed the experiences and beliefs of participants in relation to shared decision making to be elicited. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from a range of clinical backgrounds and with varying length of clinical experience. A semi-structured interview schedule was utilised and was adapted in subsequent interviews to reflect emergent themes. Data analysis was completed in parallel with interviews in order to guide interview topics and to inform recruitment. A directed analysis method was utilised for interview analysis with themes identified being fitted to a framework identified from the research literature as applicable to the practice of shared decision making. Examples of themes contradictory to, or not adequately explained by, the framework were sought. Results A total of 26 consultant psychiatrists were interviewed. Participants expressed support for the shared decision making model, but also acknowledged that it was necessary to be flexible as the clinical situation dictated. A number of potential barriers to the process were perceived however: The commonest barrier was the clinician’s beliefs regarding the service users’ insight into their mental disorder, presented in some cases as an absolute barrier to shared decision making. In addition factors external to the clinician - service user relationship were identified as impacting on the decision making process, including; environmental factors

A Multimethod Analysis of Shared Decision-Making in Hospice Interdisciplinary Team Meetings Including Family Caregivers

PubMed Central

Washington, Karla T.; Oliver, Debra Parker; Gage, L. Ashley; Albright, David L.; Demiris, George

2015-01-01

Background Much of the existing research on shared decision-making in hospice and palliative care focuses on the provider-patient dyad; little is known about shared decision-making that is inclusive of family members of patients with advanced disease. Aim We sought to describe shared decision-making as it occurred in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings that included family caregivers as participants using video-conferencing technology. Design We conducted a multimethod study in which we used content and thematic analysis techniques to analyze video-recordings of hospice interdisciplinary team meetings (n = 100), individual interviews of family caregivers (n = 73) and hospice staff members (n = 78), and research field notes. Setting/participants Participants in the original studies from which data for this analysis were drawn were hospice family caregivers and staff members employed by one of five different community-based hospice agencies located in the Midwestern United States. Results Shared decision-making occurred infrequently in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings that included family caregivers. Barriers to shared decision-making included time constraints, communication skill deficits, unaddressed emotional needs, staff absences, and unclear role expectations. The hospice philosophy of care, current trends in health care delivery, the interdisciplinary nature of hospice teams, and the designation of a team leader/facilitator supported shared decision-making. Conclusions The involvement of family caregivers in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings using video-conferencing technology creates a useful platform for shared decision-making; however, steps must be taken to transform family caregivers from meeting attendees to shared decision-makers. PMID:26281854

Conflicts of interest and the evolution of decision sharing

PubMed Central

Conradt, Larissa; Roper, Timothy J.

2008-01-01

Social animals regularly face consensus decisions whereby they choose, collectively, between mutually exclusive actions. Such decisions often involve conflicts of interest between group members with respect to preferred action. Conflicts could, in principle, be resolved, either by sharing decisions between members (‘shared decisions’) or by one ‘dominant’ member making decisions on behalf of the whole group (‘unshared decisions’). Both, shared and unshared decisions, have been observed. However, it is unclear as to what favours the evolution of either decision type. Here, after a brief literature review, we present a novel method, involving a combination of self-organizing system and game theory modelling, of investigating the evolution of shared and unshared decisions. We apply the method to decisions on movement direction. We find that both, shared and unshared, decisions can evolve without individuals having a global overview of the group's behaviour or any knowledge about other members' preferences or intentions. Selection favours unshared over shared decisions when conflicts are high relative to grouping benefits, and vice versa. These results differ from those of group decision models relating to activity timings. We attribute this to fundamental differences between collective decisions about modalities that are disjunct (here, space) or continuous (here, time) with respect to costs/benefits. PMID:19073479

How contextual issues can distort shared decision making.

PubMed

Gartlehner, Gerald; Matyas, Nina

2016-12-01

Shared decision making in medicine has become a widely promoted approach. The goal is for patients and physicians to reach a mutual, informed decision by taking into consideration scientific evidence, clinical experience, and the patient's personal values or preferences. Shared decision making, however, is not a straightforward process. In practice, it might fall short of what it promises and might even be misused to whitewash monetary motives. In this article, which summarizes a presentation given at the 17 th Annual Conference of the German Network Evidence-based Medicine on March 4 th , 2016 in Cologne, Germany, we discuss three contextual factors that in our opinion can have a tremendous impact on any informed decision making: 1) opinions and convictions of physicians or other clinicians; 2) uncertainty of the evidence regarding benefits and harms; 3) uncertainty of patients about their own values and preferences. But despite barriers and shortcomings, modern medicine currently does not have an alternative to shared decision making. Shared decision making has become a central theme in good quality health care because it has a strong ethical component. Advocates of shared decision making, however, must realize that not all patients prefer to participate in decision making. For those who do, however, we must ensure that shared decisions can be made in a neutral environment as free of biases and conflicts of interest as possible. Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Shared decision-making.

PubMed

Godolphin, William

2009-01-01

Shared decision-making has been called the crux of patient-centred care and identified as a key part of change for improved quality and safety in healthcare. However, it rarely happens, is hard to do and is not taught - for many reasons. Talking with patients about options is not embedded in the attitudes or communication skills training of most healthcare professionals. Information tools such as patient decision aids, personal health records and the Internet will help to shift this state, as will policy that drives patient and public involvement in healthcare delivery and training.

[Impact of shared-decision making on patient satisfaction].

PubMed

Suh, Won S; Lee, Chae Kyung

2010-01-01

The purpose of this research is to analyze the impact of shared-decision making on patient satisfaction. The study is significant since it focuses on developing appropriate methodologies and analyzing data to identify patient preferences, with the goals of optimizing treatment selection, and substantiating the relationship between such preferences and their impact on outcomes. A thorough literature review that developed the framework illustrating key dimensions of shared decision making was followed by a quantitative assessment and regression analysis of patient-perceived satisfaction, and the degree of shared-decision making. A positive association was evident between shared-decision making and patient satisfaction. The impact of shared decision making on patient satisfaction was greater than other variable including gender, education, and number of visits. Patients who participate in care-related decisions and who are given an explanation of their health problems are more likely to be satisfied with their care. It would benefit health care organizations to train their medical professionals in this communication method, and to include it in their practice guidelines.

Patients' perceptions of sharing in decisions: a systematic review of interventions to enhance shared decision making in routine clinical practice.

PubMed

Légaré, France; Turcotte, Stéphane; Stacey, Dawn; Ratté, Stéphane; Kryworuchko, Jennifer; Graham, Ian D

2012-01-01

Shared decision making is the process in which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the health professional and the patient. Little is known about what patients view as effective or ineffective strategies to implement shared decision making in routine clinical practice. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of interventions to improve health professionals' adoption of shared decision making in routine clinical practice, as seen by patients. We searched electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) from their inception to mid-March 2009. We found additional material by reviewing the reference lists of the studies found in the databases; systematic reviews of studies on shared decision making; the proceedings of various editions of the International Shared Decision Making Conference; and the transcripts of the Society for Medical Decision Making's meetings. In our study selection, we included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses in which patients evaluated interventions to improve health professionals' adoption of shared decision making. The interventions in question consisted of the distribution of printed educational material; educational meetings; audit and feedback; reminders; and patient-mediated initiatives (e.g. patient decision aids). Two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted data. Statistical analyses considered categorical and continuous process measures. We computed the standardized effect size for each outcome at the 95% confidence interval. The primary outcome of interest was health professionals' adoption of shared decision making as reported by patients in a self-administered questionnaire. Of the 6764 search results, 21 studies reported 35 relevant comparisons. Overall, the quality of the studies ranged from 0% to 83%. Only three of the 21 studies reported a clinically significant effect

Shared decision making, paternalism and patient choice.

PubMed

Sandman, Lars; Munthe, Christian

2010-03-01

In patient centred care, shared decision making is a central feature and widely referred to as a norm for patient centred medical consultation. However, it is far from clear how to distinguish SDM from standard models and ideals for medical decision making, such as paternalism and patient choice, and e.g., whether paternalism and patient choice can involve a greater degree of the sort of sharing involved in SDM and still retain their essential features. In the article, different versions of SDM are explored, versions compatible with paternalism and patient choice as well as versions that go beyond these traditional decision making models. Whenever SDM is discussed or introduced it is of importance to be clear over which of these different versions are being pursued, since they connect to basic values and ideals of health care in different ways. It is further argued that we have reason to pursue versions of SDM involving, what is called, a high level dynamics in medical decision-making. This leaves four alternative models to choose between depending on how we balance between the values of patient best interest, patient autonomy, and an effective decision in terms of patient compliance or adherence: Shared Rational Deliberative Patient Choice, Shared Rational Deliberative Paternalism, Shared Rational Deliberative Joint Decision, and Professionally Driven Best Interest Compromise. In relation to these models it is argued that we ideally should use the Shared Rational Deliberative Joint Decision model. However, when the patient and professional fail to reach consensus we will have reason to pursue the Professionally Driven Best Interest Compromise model since this will best harmonise between the different values at stake: patient best interest, patient autonomy, patient adherence and a continued care relationship.

[Shared decision-making in mental health care: a role model from youth mental health care].

PubMed

Westermann, G M A; Maurer, J M G

2015-01-01

In the communication and interaction between doctor and patient in Western health care there has been a paradigm shift from the paternalistic approach to shared decision-making. To summarise the background situation, recent developments and the current level of shared decision-making in (youth) mental health care. We conducted a critical review of the literature relating to the methodology development, research and the use of counselling and decision-making in mental health care. The majority of patients, professionals and other stakeholders consider shared decision-making to be desirable and important for improving the quality and efficiency of care. Up till recently most research and studies have concentrated on helping patients to develop decision-making skills and on showing patients how and where to access information. At the moment more attention is being given to the development of skills and circumstances that will increase patients' interaction with care professionals and patients' emotional involvement in shared decision-making. In mental health for children and adolescents, more often than in adult mental health care, it has been customary to give more attention to these aspects of shared decision-making, particularly during counselling sessions that mark the transition from diagnosis to treatment. This emphasis has been apparent for a long time in textbooks, daily practice, methodology development and research in youth mental health care. Currently, a number of similar developments are taking place in adult mental health care. Although most health professionals support the policy of shared decision-making, the implementation of the policy in mental health care is still at an early stage. In practice, a number of obstacles still have to be surmounted. However, the experience gained with counselling and decision-making in (youth) mental health care may serve as an example to other sections of mental health care and play an important role in the further

Shared Decision Making.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lashway, Larry

1997-01-01

In shared decision making (SDM), principals collaborate with teachers and sometimes parents to take actions aimed at improving instruction and school climate. While research on SDM outcomes is still inconclusive, the literature shows that SDM brings both benefits and problems, and that the principal is a key figure. This brief offers a sampling of…

Shared Decision-Making as the Future of Emergency Cardiology.

PubMed

Probst, Marc A; Noseworthy, Peter A; Brito, Juan P; Hess, Erik P

2018-02-01

Shared decision-making is playing an increasingly large role in emergency cardiovascular care. Although there are many challenges to successfully performing shared decision-making in the emergency department, there are numerous clinical scenarios in which it should be used. In this article, we explore new research and emerging decision aids in the following emergency care scenarios: (1) low-risk chest pain; (2) new-onset atrial fibrillation; and (3) moderate-risk syncope. These decision aids are designed to engage patients and facilitate shared decision-making for specific treatment and disposition (admit vs discharge) decisions. We then offer a 3-step, practical approach to performing shared decision-making in the acute care setting, on the basis of broad stakeholder input and previous conceptual work. Step 1 involves simply acknowledging that a clinical decision needs to be made. Step 2 involves a shared discussion about the working diagnosis and the options for care in the context of the patient's values, preferences, and circumstances. The third and final step requires the patient and provider to agree on a plan of action regarding further medical care. The implementation of shared decision-making in emergency cardiology has the potential to shift the paradigm of clinical practice from paternalism toward mutualism and improve the quality and experience of care for our patients. Copyright © 2017 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Patients' understanding of shared decision making in a mental health setting.

PubMed

Eliacin, Johanne; Salyers, Michelle P; Kukla, Marina; Matthias, Marianne S

2015-05-01

Shared decision making is a fundamental component of patient-centered care and has been linked to positive health outcomes. Increasingly, researchers are turning their attention to shared decision making in mental health; however, few studies have explored decision making in these settings from patients' perspectives. We examined patients' accounts and understanding of shared decision making. We analyzed interviews from 54 veterans receiving outpatient mental health care at a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in the United States. Although patients' understanding of shared decision making was consistent with accounts published in the literature, participants reported that shared decision making goes well beyond these components. They identified the patient-provider relationship as the bedrock of shared decision making and highlighted several factors that interfere with shared decision making. Our findings highlight the importance of the patient-provider relationship as a fundamental element of shared decision making and point to areas for potential improvement. © The Author(s) 2014.

Shared decision making for patients living with inflammatory arthritis.

PubMed

Palmer, Deborah; El Miedany, Yasser

Providing adequate care for people with inflammatory arthritis is an ongoing challenge. In recent years significant progress has been made in the treatment of inflammatory arthritic conditions. The availability of a wide range of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs as well as biologic therapies has not only improved treatment, but also made treatment decisions much more complex. This wider range of improved treatment options happened at the same time as a clear move towards patient-centred care and implementing shared decision making for both medical and surgical conditions. Implementing shared decision making has been reported to be associated with higher satisfaction and better adherence to therapy. Electronic shared decision making has more recently been suggested as a tool for clinical practice. The aim of this article is to look at further integrating shared decision making in standard rheumatology practice in view of the available evidence and the outcomes of a study looking at a recently developed patient shared decision guide.

Shared Decision Making--The First Year.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Rothstein, Richard

This report summarizes an evaluation of Shared Decision Making (SDM) in Los Angeles (California) schools and also includes some comments about School Based Management (SBM). SDM is a democratization of local school decision making that delegates decisions formerly made by principals to local school leadership councils composed of teachers,…

A Review of Shared Decision-Making and Patient Decision Aids in Radiation Oncology.

PubMed

Woodhouse, Kristina Demas; Tremont, Katie; Vachani, Anil; Schapira, Marilyn M; Vapiwala, Neha; Simone, Charles B; Berman, Abigail T

2017-06-01

Cancer treatment decisions are complex and may be challenging for patients, as multiple treatment options can often be reasonably considered. As a result, decisional support tools have been developed to assist patients in the decision-making process. A commonly used intervention to facilitate shared decision-making is a decision aid, which provides evidence-based outcomes information and guides patients towards choosing the treatment option that best aligns with their preferences and values. To ensure high quality, systematic frameworks and standards have been proposed for the development of an optimal aid for decision making. Studies have examined the impact of these tools on facilitating treatment decisions and improving decision-related outcomes. In radiation oncology, randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that decision aids have the potential to improve patient outcomes, including increased knowledge about treatment options and decreased decisional conflict with decision-making. This article provides an overview of the shared-decision making process and summarizes the development, validation, and implementation of decision aids as patient educational tools in radiation oncology. Finally, this article reviews the findings from decision aid studies in radiation oncology and offers various strategies to effectively implement shared decision-making into clinical practice.

[Shared medical decision making in gynaecology].

PubMed

This, P; Panel, P

2010-02-01

When two options or more can be chosen in medical care, the final decision implies two steps: facts analysis, and patient evaluation of preferences. Shared Medical Decision-Making is a rational conceptual frame that can be used in such cases. In this paper, we describe the concept, its practical modalities, and the questions raised by its use. In gynaecology, many medical situations involve "sensitive preferences choice": for example, contraceptive choice, menorrhagia treatment, and approach of menopause. Some tools from the "Shared Medical Decision Making" concept are useful to structure medical consultations, to convey information, and to reveal patients preferences. Decision aid are used in clinical research settings, but some of them may also be easily used in usual practice, and help physicians to improve both quality and traceability of the decisional process. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Shared decision making in endocrinology: present and future directions.

PubMed

Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene; Gionfriddo, Michael R; Ospina, Naykky Singh; Maraka, Spyridoula; Tamhane, Shrikant; Montori, Victor M; Brito, Juan P

2016-08-01

In medicine and endocrinology, there are few clinical circumstances in which clinicians can accurately predict what is best for their patients. As a result, patients and clinicians frequently have to make decisions about which there is uncertainty. Uncertainty results from limitations in the research evidence, unclear patient preferences, or an inability to predict how treatments will fit into patients' daily lives. The work that patients and clinicians do together to address the patient's situation and engage in a deliberative dialogue about reasonable treatment options is often called shared decision making. Decision aids are evidence-based tools that facilitate this process. Shared decision making is a patient-centred approach in which clinicians share information about the benefits, harms, and burden of different reasonable diagnostic and treatment options, and patients explain what matters to them in view of their particular values, preferences, and personal context. Beyond the ethical argument in support of this approach, decision aids have been shown to improve patients' knowledge about the available options, accuracy of risk estimates, and decisional comfort. Decision aids also promote patient participation in the decision-making process. Despite accumulating evidence from clinical trials, policy support, and expert recommendations in endocrinology practice guidelines, shared decision making is still not routinely implemented in endocrine practice. Additional work is needed to enrich the number of available tools and to implement them in practice workflows. Also, although the evidence from randomised controlled trials favours the use of this shared decision making in other settings, populations, and illnesses, the effect of this approach has been studied in a few endocrine disorders. Future pragmatic trials are needed to explore the effect and feasibility of shared decision making implementation into routine endocrinology and primary care practice. With the

Are mobile health applications useful for supporting shared decision making in diagnostic and treatment decisions?

PubMed Central

Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, Samira; Menear, Matthew; Robitaille, Hubert; Légaré, France

2017-01-01

ABSTRACT Mobile health (mHealth) applications intended to support shared decision making in diagnostic and treatment decisions are increasingly available. In this paper, we discuss some recent studies on mHealth applications with relevance to shared decision making. We discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of using mHealth in shared decision making in various contexts, and suggest some directions for future research in this quickly expanding field. PMID:28838306

Ten Years, Forty Decision Aids, And Thousands Of Patient Uses: Shared Decision Making At Massachusetts General Hospital.

PubMed

Sepucha, Karen R; Simmons, Leigh H; Barry, Michael J; Edgman-Levitan, Susan; Licurse, Adam M; Chaguturu, Sreekanth K

2016-04-01

Shared decision making is a core component of population health strategies aimed at improving patient engagement. Massachusetts General Hospital's integration of shared decision making into practice has focused on the following three elements: developing a culture receptive to, and health care providers skilled in, shared decision making conversations; using patient decision aids to help inform and engage patients; and providing infrastructure and resources to support the implementation of shared decision making in practice. In the period 2005-15, more than 900 clinicians and other staff members were trained in shared decision making, and more than 28,000 orders for one of about forty patient decision aids were placed to support informed patient-centered decisions. We profile two different implementation initiatives that increased the use of patient decision aids at the hospital's eighteen adult primary care practices, and we summarize key elements of the shared decision making program. Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.

Shared decision-making - Rhetoric and reality: Women's experiences and perceptions of adjuvant treatment decision-making for breast cancer.

PubMed

Mahmoodi, Neda; Sargeant, Sally

2017-01-01

This interview-based study uses phenomenology as a theoretical framework and thematic analysis to challenge existing explanatory frameworks of shared decision-making, in an exploration of women's experiences and perceptions of shared decision-making for adjuvant treatment in breast cancer. Three themes emerged are as follows: (1) women's desire to participate in shared decision-making, (2) the degree to which shared decision-making is perceived to be shared and (3) to what extent are women empowered within shared decision-making. Studying breast cancer patients' subjective experiences of adjuvant treatment decision-making provides a broader perspective on patient participatory role preferences and doctor-patient power dynamics within shared decision-making for breast cancer.

Can streamlined multi-criteria decision analysis be used to implement shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening?

PubMed Central

Dolan, James G.; Boohaker, Emily; Allison, Jeroan; Imperiale, Thomas F.

2013-01-01

Background Current US colorectal cancer screening guidelines that call for shared decision making regarding the choice among several recommended screening options are difficult to implement. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an established methodology well suited for supporting shared decision making. Our study goal was to determine if a streamlined form of MCDA using rank order based judgments can accurately assess patients’ colorectal cancer screening priorities. Methods We converted priorities for four decision criteria and three sub-criteria regarding colorectal cancer screening obtained from 484 average risk patients using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in a prior study into rank order-based priorities using rank order centroids. We compared the two sets of priorities using Spearman rank correlation and non-parametric Bland-Altman limits of agreement analysis. We assessed the differential impact of using the rank order-based versus the AHP-based priorities on the results of a full MCDA comparing three currently recommended colorectal cancer screening strategies. Generalizability of the results was assessed using Monte Carlo simulation. Results Correlations between the two sets of priorities for the seven criteria ranged from 0.55 to 0.92. The proportions of absolute differences between rank order-based and AHP-based priorities that were more than ± 0.15 ranged from 1% to 16%. Differences in the full MCDA results were minimal and the relative rankings of the three screening options were identical more than 88% of the time. The Monte Carlo simulation results were similar. Conclusion Rank order-based MCDA could be a simple, practical way to guide individual decisions and assess population decision priorities regarding colorectal cancer screening strategies. Additional research is warranted to further explore the use of these methods for promoting shared decision making. PMID:24300851

Barriers to and facilitators of implementing shared decision making and decision support in a paediatric hospital: A descriptive study.

PubMed

Boland, Laura; McIsaac, Daniel I; Lawson, Margaret L

2016-04-01

To explore multiple stakeholders' perceived barriers to and facilitators of implementing shared decision making and decision support in a tertiary paediatric hospital. An interpretive descriptive qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and interviews to examine senior hospital administrators', clinicians', parents' and youths' perceived barriers to and facilitators of shared decision making and decision support implementation. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Fifty-seven stakeholders participated. Six barrier and facilitator themes emerged. The main barrier was gaps in stakeholders' knowledge of shared decision making and decision support. Facilitators included compatibility between shared decision making and the hospital's culture and ideal practices, perceptions of positive patient and family outcomes associated with shared decision making, and positive attitudes regarding shared decision making and decision support. However, youth attitudes regarding the necessity and usefulness of a decision support program were a barrier. Two themes were both a barrier and a facilitator. First, stakeholder groups were uncertain which clinical situations are suitable for shared decision making (eg, new diagnoses, chronic illnesses, complex decisions or urgent decisions). Second, the clinical process may be hindered if shared decision making and decision support decrease efficiency and workflow; however, shared decision making may reduce repeat visits and save time over the long term. Specific knowledge translation strategies that improve shared decision making knowledge and match specific barriers identified by each stakeholder group may be required to promote successful shared decision making and decision support implementation in the authors' paediatric hospital.

Antibiotic and shared decision-making preferences among adolescents in Malaysia

PubMed Central

Ngadimon, Irma Wati; Islahudin, Farida; Hatah, Ernieda; Mohamed Shah, Noraida; Makmor-Bakry, Mohd

2015-01-01

Background The purpose of this study was to establish baseline information on the current level of knowledge about, attitude toward, and experience with antibiotic usage, and preferences for shared decision making among adolescents in Malaysia. Methods A cross-sectional survey, involving 1,105 respondents who were aged between 13 and 17 years and who lived in Malaysia, was conducted using a validated questionnaire. The survey assessed knowledge, attitude, and experience with regard to antibiotic usage, and adolescents’ preferences for the style of shared decision-making process. Results The majority (n=786 [71.13%]) of the respondents had a low level of knowledge, 296 (26.79%) had a moderate level of knowledge, and 23 (2.08%) had a high level of knowledge. Further, they demonstrated a slightly negative attitude mean score of 3.30±0.05 (range: 0–8 points) but a positive experience mean score of 2.90±0.029 (range: 0–4 points). There was a positive correlation between knowledge and attitude scores, with a higher knowledge level associated with a more positive attitude toward antibiotic usage (r=0.257, P<0.001). Higher knowledge scores were associated with a more negative experience with antibiotic usage (r=−0.83, P=0.006). When assessing preference in shared decision making, more adolescents preferred an active role (n=408 [37%]) compared with collaborative (n=360 [32.6%]) or passive (n=337 [30.5%]) (P=0.028) roles. Conclusion Current health care settings should involve adolescents in the decision-making process. Education packages can be introduced to improve adolescents’ knowledge of and practice of taking antibiotics, as well as to encourage their participation in decision making, in an attempt to reduce misuse of antibiotics. PMID:25999702

Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences.

PubMed

Elwyn, Glyn; Frosch, Dominick L; Kobrin, Sarah

2016-08-08

The ethical argument that shared decision-making is "the right" thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences. To date, many more studies have evaluated patient decision aids rather than other approaches to shared decision-making, and the outcomes measured have typically been focused on short-term cognitive and affective outcomes, for example knowledge and decisional conflict. From a clinicians perspective, the shared decision-making process could be viewed as either intrinsically rewarding and protective, or burdensome and impractical, yet studies have not focused on the impact on professionals, either positive or negative. At interactional levels, group, team, and microsystem, the potential long-term consequences could include the development of a culture where deliberation and collaboration are regarded as guiding principles, where patients are coached to assess the value of interventions, to trade-off benefits versus harms, and assess their burdens-in short, to new social norms in the clinical workplace. At organizational levels, consistent shared decision-making might boost patient experience evaluations and lead to fewer complaints and legal

[Cancer screening in clinical practice: the value of shared decision-making].

PubMed

Cornuz, Jacques; Junod, Noëlle; Pasche, Olivier; Guessous, Idris

2010-07-14

Shared decision-making approach to uncertain clinical situations such as cancer screening seems more appropriate than ever. Shared decision making can be defined as an interactive process where physician and patient share all the stages of the decision making process. For patients who wish to be implicated in the management of their health conditions, physicians might express difficulty to do so. Use of patient decision aids appears to improve such process of shared decision making.

Shared decision making or paternalism in nursing consultations? A qualitative study of primary care asthma nurses’ views on sharing decisions with patients regarding inhaler device selection

PubMed Central

Upton, Jane; Fletcher, Monica; Madoc‐Sutton, Hazel; Sheikh, Aziz; Caress, Ann‐Louise; Walker, Samantha

2011-01-01

Abstract Background  Although patients with asthma would like more involvement in the decision‐making process, and UK government policy concerning chronic conditions supports shared decision making, it is not widely used in practice. Objective  To investigate how nurses approach decision making in relation to inhaler choice and long‐term inhaler use within a routine asthma consultation and to better understand the barriers and facilitators to shared decision making in practice. Setting and participants  Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with post‐registration, qualified nurses who routinely undertook asthma consultations and were registered on a respiratory course. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using the Framework approach. Results  Twenty participants were interviewed. Despite holding positive views about shared decision making, limited shared decision making was reported. Opportunities for patients to share decisions were only offered in relation to inhaler device, which were based on the nurse’s pre‐selected recommendations. Giving patients this ‘choice’ was seen as key to improving adherence. Discussion  There is a discrepancy between nurses’ understanding of shared decision making and the depictions of shared decision making presented in the academic literature and NHS policy. In this study, shared decision making was used as a tool to support the nurses’ agenda, rather than as a natural expression of equality between the nurse and patient. Conclusion  There is a misalignment between the goals of practice nurses and the rhetoric regarding patient empowerment. Shared decision making may therefore only be embraced if it improves patient outcomes. This study indicates attitudinal shifts and improvements in knowledge of ‘shared decision‐making’ are needed if policy dictates are to be realised. PMID:21323822

Principles of shared decision-making within teams.

PubMed

Jacobs, Jeffrey P; Wernovsky, Gil; Cooper, David S; Karl, Tom R

2015-12-01

In the domain of paediatric and congenital cardiac care, the stakes are huge. Likewise, the care of these children assembles a group of "A+ personality" individuals from the domains of cardiac surgery, cardiology, anaesthesiology, critical care, and nursing. This results in an environment that has opportunity for both powerful collaboration and powerful conflict. Providers of healthcare should avoid conflict when it has no bearing on outcome, as it is clearly a squandering of individual and collective political capital. Outcomes after cardiac surgery are now being reported transparently and publicly. In the present era of transparency, one may wonder how to balance the following potentially competing demands: quality healthcare, transparency and accountability, and teamwork and shared decision-making. An understanding of transparency and public reporting in the domain of paediatric cardiac surgery facilitates the implementation of a strategy for teamwork and shared decision-making. In January, 2015, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) began to publicly report outcomes of paediatric and congenital cardiac surgery using the 2014 Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database (STS-CHSD) Mortality Risk Model. The 2014 STS-CHSD Mortality Risk Model facilitates description of Operative Mortality adjusted for procedural and patient-level factors. The need for transparency in reporting of outcomes can create pressure on healthcare providers to implement strategies of teamwork and shared decision-making to assure outstanding results. A simple strategy of shared decision-making was described by Tom Karl and was implemented in multiple domains by Jeff Jacobs and David Cooper. In a critical-care environment, it is not unusual for healthcare providers to disagree about strategies of management of patients. When two healthcare providers disagree, each provider can classify the disagreement into three levels: • SDM Level 1 Decision: "We disagree but it really

Barriers to and facilitators of implementing shared decision making and decision support in a paediatric hospital: A descriptive study

PubMed Central

Boland, Laura; McIsaac, Daniel I; Lawson, Margaret L

2016-01-01

OBJECTIVE: To explore multiple stakeholders’ perceived barriers to and facilitators of implementing shared decision making and decision support in a tertiary paediatric hospital. METHODS: An interpretive descriptive qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and interviews to examine senior hospital administrators’, clinicians’, parents’ and youths’ perceived barriers to and facilitators of shared decision making and decision support implementation. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-seven stakeholders participated. Six barrier and facilitator themes emerged. The main barrier was gaps in stakeholders’ knowledge of shared decision making and decision support. Facilitators included compatibility between shared decision making and the hospital’s culture and ideal practices, perceptions of positive patient and family outcomes associated with shared decision making, and positive attitudes regarding shared decision making and decision support. However, youth attitudes regarding the necessity and usefulness of a decision support program were a barrier. Two themes were both a barrier and a facilitator. First, stakeholder groups were uncertain which clinical situations are suitable for shared decision making (eg, new diagnoses, chronic illnesses, complex decisions or urgent decisions). Second, the clinical process may be hindered if shared decision making and decision support decrease efficiency and workflow; however, shared decision making may reduce repeat visits and save time over the long term. CONCLUSIONS: Specific knowledge translation strategies that improve shared decision making knowledge and match specific barriers identified by each stakeholder group may be required to promote successful shared decision making and decision support implementation in the authors’ paediatric hospital. PMID:27398058

Shared decision-making for people living with dementia in extended care settings: a systematic review

PubMed Central

Bunn, Frances; Goodman, Claire

2018-01-01

Background Shared decision-making is recognised as an important element of person-centred dementia care. Objectives The aim of this review was to explore how people living with dementia and cognitive impairment can be included in day-to-day decisions about their health and care in extended care settings. Design A systematic review including primary research relating to shared decision-making, with cognitively impaired adults in (or transferrable to) extended care settings. Databases searched were: CINAHL, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, NICE Evidence, OpenGrey, Autism Data, Google Scholar, Scopus and Medicines Complete (June to October 2016 and updated 2018) for studies published in the last 20 years. Results Of the 19 included studies 15 involved people with living dementia, seven in extended care settings. People living with cognitive impairment often have the desire and ability to participate in decision-making about their everyday care, although this is regularly underestimated by their staff and family care partners. Shared decision-making has the potential to improve quality of life for both the person living with dementia and those who support them. How resources to support shared decision-making are implemented in extended care settings is less well understood. Conclusions Evidence suggests that people living with cognitive impairment value opportunities to be involved in everyday decision-making about their care. How these opportunities are created, understood, supported and sustained in extended care settings remains to be determined. Trial registration number CRD42016035919 PMID:29886439

[Shared decision-making in medical practice--patient-centred communication skills].

PubMed

van Staveren, Remke

2011-01-01

Most patients (70%) want to participate actively in important healthcare decisions, the rest (30%) prefer the doctor to make the decision for them. Shared decision-making provides more patient satisfaction, a better quality of life and contributes to a better doctor-patient relationship. Patients making their own decision generally make a well considered and medically sensible choice. In shared decision-making the doctor asks many open questions, gives and requests much information, asks if the patient wishes to participate in the decision-making and explicitly takes into account patient circumstances and preferences. Shared decision-making should remain an individual choice and should not become a new dogma.

Incentivizing shared decision making in the USA--where are we now?

PubMed

Durand, Marie-Anne; Barr, Paul J; Walsh, Thom; Elwyn, Glyn

2015-06-01

The Affordable Care Act raised significant interest in the process of shared decision making, the role of patient decision aids, and incentivizing their utilization. However, it has not been clear how best to put incentives into practice, and how the implementation of shared decision making and the use of patient decision aids would be measured. Our goal was to review developments and proposals put forward. We performed a qualitative document analysis following a pragmatic search of Medline, Google, Google Scholar, Business Source Complete (Ebscohost), and LexisNexis from 2009-2013 using the following key words: "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", "Decision Making", "Affordable Care Act", "Shared Decision Making", "measurement", "incentives", and "payment." We observed a lack of clarity about how to measure shared decision making, about how best to reward the use of patient decisions aids, and therefore how best to incentivize the process. Many documents clearly imply that providing and disseminating patient decision aids might be equivalent to shared decision making. However, there is little evidence that these tools, when used by patients in advance of clinical encounters, lead to significant change in patient-provider communication. The assessment of shared decision making for performance management remains challenging. Efforts to incentivize shared decision making are at risk of being limited to the promotion of patient decision aids, passing over the opportunity to influence the communication processes between patients and providers. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Whole mind and shared mind in clinical decision-making.

PubMed

Epstein, Ronald Mark

2013-02-01

To review the theory, research evidence and ethical implications regarding "whole mind" and "shared mind" in clinical practice in the context of chronic and serious illnesses. Selective critical review of the intersection of classical and naturalistic decision-making theories, cognitive neuroscience, communication research and ethics as they apply to decision-making and autonomy. Decision-making involves analytic thinking as well as affect and intuition ("whole mind") and sharing cognitive and affective schemas of two or more individuals ("shared mind"). Social relationships can help processing of complex information that otherwise would overwhelm individuals' cognitive capacities. Medical decision-making research, teaching and practice should consider both analytic and non-analytic cognitive processes. Further, research should consider that decisions emerge not only from the individual perspectives of patients, their families and clinicians, but also the perspectives that emerge from the interactions among them. Social interactions have the potential to enhance individual autonomy, as well as to promote relational autonomy based on shared frames of reference. Shared mind has the potential to result in wiser decisions, greater autonomy and self-determination; yet, clinicians and patients should be vigilant for the potential of hierarchical relationships to foster coercion or silencing of the patient's voice. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Shared Decision Making in Cancer Care

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Butow, Phyllis; Tattersall, Martin

2005-01-01

Cancer treatment outcomes have improved over the past 20 years, but treatment decision making in this context remains complex. There are often a number of reasonable treatment alternatives, including no treatment in some circumstances. Patients and doctors often have to weigh up uncertain benefits against uncertain costs. Shared decision making…

Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Recognizing Ways to Improve Shared Decision Making

PubMed Central

Hasak, Jessica M.; Myckatyn, Terence M.; Grabinski, Victoria F.; Philpott, Sydney E.; Parikh, Rajiv P.

2017-01-01

Background: Postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) is an elective, preference-sensitive decision made during a stressful, time-pressured period after a cancer diagnosis. Shared decision making (SDM) can improve decision quality about preference-sensitive choices. Stakeholders’ perspectives on ways to support PMBR decision-making were explored. Methods: Forty semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (20 postmastectomy patients, 10 PMBR surgeons, 10 PMBR nurses) were conducted. Clinicians were recruited from diverse practices across the United States. Patients were recruited using purposive sampling with varying PMBR experiences, including no reconstruction. The interview guide was based on an implementation research framework. Themes were identified using grounded theory approach, based on frequency and emotive force conveyed. Results: Engagement in SDM was variable. Some patients wanted more information about PMBR from clinicians, particularly about risks. Some clinicians acknowledged highlighting benefits and downplaying risks. Many patients felt pressured to make a choice by their clinicians. Clinicians who successfully engaged patients through decisions often used outside resources to supplement conversations. Conclusions: Patient–clinician trust was critical to high-quality decisions, and many patients expressed decision regret when they were not engaged in PMBR discussions. Patients often perceived a race- or age-related bias in clinician information sharing. Interventions to support SDM may enhance decision quality and reduce decision regret about PMBR, ultimately improving patient-centered care for women with breast cancer. PMID:29263969

Development of a Draft Core Set of Domains for Measuring Shared Decision Making in Osteoarthritis: An OMERACT Working Group on Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Toupin-April, Karine; Barton, Jennifer; Fraenkel, Liana; Li, Linda; Grandpierre, Viviane; Guillemin, Francis; Rader, Tamara; Stacey, Dawn; Légaré, France; Jull, Janet; Petkovic, Jennifer; Scholte-Voshaar, Marieke; Welch, Vivian; Lyddiatt, Anne; Hofstetter, Cathie; De Wit, Maarten; March, Lyn; Meade, Tanya; Christensen, Robin; Gaujoux-Viala, Cécile; Suarez-Almazor, Maria E; Boonen, Annelies; Pohl, Christoph; Martin, Richard; Tugwell, Peter S

2015-12-01

Despite the importance of shared decision making for delivering patient-centered care in rheumatology, there is no consensus on how to measure its process and outcomes. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group is to determine the core set of domains for measuring shared decision making in intervention studies in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), from the perspectives of patients, health professionals, and researchers. We followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 method to develop a draft core domain set by (1) forming an OMERACT working group; (2) conducting a review of domains of shared decision making; and (3) obtaining opinions of all those involved using a modified nominal group process held at a session activity at the OMERACT 12 meeting. In all, 26 people from Europe, North America, and Australia, including 5 patient research partners, participated in the session activity. Participants identified the following domains for measuring shared decision making to be included as part of the draft core set: (1) identifying the decision, (2) exchanging information, (3) clarifying views, (4) deliberating, (5) making the decision, (6) putting the decision into practice, and (7) assessing the effect of the decision. Contextual factors were also suggested. We proposed a draft core set of shared decision-making domains for OA intervention research studies. Next steps include a workshop at OMERACT 13 to reach consensus on these proposed domains in the wider OMERACT group, as well as to detail subdomains and assess instruments to develop a core outcome measurement set.

Development of a Draft Core Set of Domains for Measuring Shared Decision Making in Osteoarthritis: An OMERACT Working Group on Shared Decision Making

PubMed Central

Toupin April, Karine; Barton, Jennifer; Fraenkel, Liana; Li, Linda; Grandpierre, Viviane; Guillemin, Francis; Rader, Tamara; Stacey, Dawn; Légaré, France; Jull, Janet; Petkovic, Jennifer; Scholte Voshaar, Marieke; Welch, Vivian; Lyddiatt, Anne; Hofstetter, Cathie; De Wit, Maarten; March, Lyn; Meade, Tanya; Christensen, Robin; Gaujoux-Viala, Cécile; Suarez-Almazor, Maria E.; Boonen, Annelies; Pohl, Christoph; Martin, Richard; Tugwell, Peter

2015-01-01

Objective Despite the importance of shared decision making for delivering patient-centred care in rheumatology, there is no consensus on how to measure its process and outcomes. The aim of this OMERACT working group is to determine the core set of domains for measuring shared decision making in intervention studies in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), from the perspective of patients, health professionals and researchers. Methods We followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 to develop a draft core domain set, which consisted of: (i) forming an OMERACT working group; (ii) conducting a review of domains of shared decision making; and (iii) obtaining the opinions of stakeholders using a modified nominal group process held at a session activity at the OMERACT 2014 meeting. Results 26 stakeholders from Europe, North America and Australia, including 5 patient research partners, participated in the session activity. Participants identified the following domains for measuring shared decision making to be included as part of the Draft Core Set: 1) Identifying the decision; 2) Exchanging Information; 3) Clarifying views; 4) Deliberating; 5) Making the decision; 6) Putting the decision into practice; and 7) Assessing the impact of the decision. Contextual factors were also suggested. Conclusion We propose a Draft Core Set of shared decision making domains for OA intervention research studies. Next steps include a workshop at OMERACT 2016 to reach consensus on these proposed domains in the wider OMERACT group, as well as detail sub-domains and assess instruments to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set. PMID:25877502

Patchy ‘coherence’: using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC)

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background Implementing shared decision making into routine practice is proving difficult, despite considerable interest from policy-makers, and is far more complex than merely making decision support interventions available to patients. Few have reported successful implementation beyond research studies. MAking Good Decisions In Collaboration (MAGIC) is a multi-faceted implementation program, commissioned by The Health Foundation (UK), to examine how best to put shared decision making into routine practice. In this paper, we investigate healthcare professionals’ perspectives on implementing shared decision making during the MAGIC program, to examine the work required to implement shared decision making and to inform future efforts. Methods The MAGIC program approached implementation of shared decision making by initiating a range of interventions including: providing workshops; facilitating development of brief decision support tools (Option Grids); initiating a patient activation campaign (‘Ask 3 Questions’); gathering feedback using Decision Quality Measures; providing clinical leads meetings, learning events, and feedback sessions; and obtaining executive board level support. At 9 and 15 months (May and November 2011), two rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals in three secondary care teams to explore views on the impact of these interventions. Interview data were coded by two reviewers using a framework derived from the Normalization Process Theory. Results A total of 54 interviews were completed with 31 healthcare professionals. Partial implementation of shared decision making could be explained using the four components of the Normalization Process Theory: ‘coherence,’ ‘cognitive participation,’ ‘collective action,’ and ‘reflexive monitoring.’ Shared decision making was integrated into routine practice when clinical teams shared coherent views of role and purpose (‘coherence’). Shared

Shared decision-making in pediatric otolaryngology: Parent, physician and observational perspectives.

PubMed

Hong, Paul; Maguire, Erin; Gorodzinsky, Ayala Y; Curran, Janet A; Ritchie, Krista; Chorney, Jill

2016-08-01

To describe physician and parent behavior during pediatric otolaryngology surgical consultations, and to assess whether perceptions of shared decision-making and observed behavior are related. Parents of 126 children less than 6-years of age who underwent consultation for adeontonsillectomy or tympanostomy tube insertion were prospectively enrolled. Parents completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Patient version (SDM-Q-9), while surgeons completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician version (SDM-Q-Doc) after the consultation. Visits were video-recorded and analyzed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System to quantify physician and parent involvement during the consultation. Perceptions of shared decision-making between parents (SDM-Q-9) and physicians (SDM-Q-Doc) were significantly positively correlated (p = 0.03). However, there was no correlation between parents' perceptions of shared decision-making and observations of physician and parent behavior/involvement (proportion of physician socioemotional talk, task-focused talk, or proportion of parent talk). Surgeons' perceptions of shared decision-making were correlated with physician task-focused talk and proportion of parent talk. Parents and physicians had similar perceptions of the degree of shared decision-making to be taking place during pediatric otolaryngology consultations. However, there was variability in the degree to which parents participated, and parent perceptions of shared decision-making were not correlated with actual observed involvement. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Shared decision-making in medication management: development of a training intervention

PubMed Central

Stead, Ute; Morant, Nicola; Ramon, Shulamit

2017-01-01

Shared decision-making is a collaborative process in which clinicians and patients make treatment decisions together. Although it is considered essential to patient-centred care, the adoption of shared decision-making into routine clinical practice has been slow, and there is a need to increase implementation. This paper describes the development and delivery of a training intervention to promote shared decision-making in medication management in mental health as part of the Shared Involvement in Medication Management Education (ShIMME) project. Three stakeholder groups (service users, care coordinators and psychiatrists) received training in shared decision-making, and their feedback was evaluated. The programme was mostly well received, with all groups rating interaction with peers as the best aspect of the training. This small-scale pilot shows that it is feasible to deliver training in shared decision-making to several key stakeholders. Larger studies will be required to assess the effectiveness of such training. PMID:28811918

Shared decision-making in medication management: development of a training intervention.

PubMed

Stead, Ute; Morant, Nicola; Ramon, Shulamit

2017-08-01

Shared decision-making is a collaborative process in which clinicians and patients make treatment decisions together. Although it is considered essential to patient-centred care, the adoption of shared decision-making into routine clinical practice has been slow, and there is a need to increase implementation. This paper describes the development and delivery of a training intervention to promote shared decision-making in medication management in mental health as part of the Shared Involvement in Medication Management Education (ShIMME) project. Three stakeholder groups (service users, care coordinators and psychiatrists) received training in shared decision-making, and their feedback was evaluated. The programme was mostly well received, with all groups rating interaction with peers as the best aspect of the training. This small-scale pilot shows that it is feasible to deliver training in shared decision-making to several key stakeholders. Larger studies will be required to assess the effectiveness of such training.

Consultant psychiatrists' experiences of and attitudes towards shared decision making in antipsychotic prescribing, a qualitative study.

PubMed

Shepherd, Andrew; Shorthouse, Oliver; Gask, Linda

2014-05-01

Shared decision making represents a clinical consultation model where both clinician and service user are conceptualised as experts; information is shared bilaterally and joint treatment decisions are reached. Little previous research has been conducted to assess experience of this model in psychiatric practice. The current project therefore sought to explore the attitudes and experiences of consultant psychiatrists relating to shared decision making in the prescribing of antipsychotic medications. A qualitative research design allowed the experiences and beliefs of participants in relation to shared decision making to be elicited. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from a range of clinical backgrounds and with varying length of clinical experience. A semi-structured interview schedule was utilised and was adapted in subsequent interviews to reflect emergent themes.Data analysis was completed in parallel with interviews in order to guide interview topics and to inform recruitment. A directed analysis method was utilised for interview analysis with themes identified being fitted to a framework identified from the research literature as applicable to the practice of shared decision making. Examples of themes contradictory to, or not adequately explained by, the framework were sought. A total of 26 consultant psychiatrists were interviewed. Participants expressed support for the shared decision making model, but also acknowledged that it was necessary to be flexible as the clinical situation dictated. A number of potential barriers to the process were perceived however: The commonest barrier was the clinician's beliefs regarding the service users' insight into their mental disorder, presented in some cases as an absolute barrier to shared decision making. In addition factors external to the clinician - service user relationship were identified as impacting on the decision making process, including; environmental factors, financial constraints as well

Shared decision-making and decision support: their role in obstetrics and gynecology.

PubMed

Tucker Edmonds, Brownsyne

2014-12-01

To discuss the role for shared decision-making in obstetrics/gynecology and to review evidence on the impact of decision aids on reproductive health decision-making. Among the 155 studies included in a 2014 Cochrane review of decision aids, 31 (29%) addressed reproductive health decisions. Although the majority did not show evidence of an effect on treatment choice, there was a greater uptake of mammography in selected groups of women exposed to decision aids compared with usual care; and a statistically significant reduction in the uptake of hormone replacement therapy among detailed decision aid users compared with simple decision aid users. Studies also found an effect on patient-centered outcomes of care, such as medication adherence, quality-of-life measures, and anxiety scores. In maternity care, only decision analysis tools affected final treatment choice, and patient-directed aids yielded no difference in planned mode of birth after cesarean. There is untapped potential for obstetricians/gynecologists to optimize decision support for reproductive health decisions. Given the limited evidence-base guiding practice, the preference-sensitive nature of reproductive health decisions, and the increase in policy efforts and financial incentives to optimize patients' satisfaction, it is increasingly important for obstetricians/gynecologists to appreciate the role of shared decision-making and decision support in providing patient-centered reproductive healthcare.

Multiple perspectives on shared decision-making and interprofessional collaboration in mental healthcare.

PubMed

Chong, Wei Wen; Aslani, Parisa; Chen, Timothy F

2013-05-01

Shared decision-making is an essential element of patient-centered care in mental health. Since mental health services involve healthcare providers from different professions, a multiple perspective to shared decision-making may be valuable. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of different healthcare professionals on shared decision-making and current interprofessional collaboration in mental healthcare. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 healthcare providers from a range of professions, which included medical practitioners (psychiatrists, general practitioners), pharmacists, nurses, occupational therapists, psychologists and social workers. Findings indicated that healthcare providers supported the notion of shared decision-making in mental health, but felt that it should be condition dependent. Medical practitioners advocated a more active participation from consumers in treatment decision-making; whereas other providers (e.g. pharmacists, occupational therapists) focused more toward acknowledging consumers' needs in decisions, perceiving themselves to be in an advisory role in supporting consumers' decision-making. Although healthcare providers acknowledged the importance of interprofessional collaboration, only a minority discussed it within the context of shared decision-making. In conclusion, healthcare providers appeared to have differing perceptions on the level of consumer involvement in shared decision-making. Interprofessional roles to facilitate shared decision-making in mental health need to be acknowledged, understood and strengthened, before an interprofessional approach to shared decision-making in mental health can be effectively implemented.

Deciding together? Best interests and shared decision-making in paediatric intensive care.

PubMed

Birchley, Giles

2014-09-01

In the western healthcare, shared decision making has become the orthodox approach to making healthcare choices as a way of promoting patient autonomy. Despite the fact that the autonomy paradigm is poorly suited to paediatric decision making, such an approach is enshrined in English common law. When reaching moral decisions, for instance when it is unclear whether treatment or non-treatment will serve a child's best interests, shared decision making is particularly questionable because agreement does not ensure moral validity. With reference to current common law and focusing on intensive care practice, this paper investigates what claims shared decision making may have to legitimacy in a paediatric intensive care setting. Drawing on key texts, I suggest these identify advantages to parents and clinicians but not to the child who is the subject of the decision. Without evidence that shared decision making increases the quality of the decision that is being made, it appears that a focus on the shared nature of a decision does not cohere with the principle that the best interests of the child should remain paramount. In the face of significant pressures toward the displacement of the child's interests in a shared decision, advantages of a shared decision to decisional quality require elucidation. Although a number of arguments of this nature may have potential, should no such advantages be demonstrable we have cause to revise our commitment to either shared decision making or the paramountcy of the child in these circumstances.

Shared Decision Making: Improving Care for Children with Autism

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Golnik, Allison; Maccabee-Ryaboy, Nadia; Scal, Peter; Wey, Andrew; Gaillard, Philippe

2012-01-01

We assessed the extent to which parents of children with autism spectrum disorder report that they are engaged in shared decision making. We measured the association between shared decision making and (a) satisfaction with care, (b) perceived guidance regarding controversial issues in autism spectrum disorder, and (c) perceived assistance…

The Patient Experience With Shared Decision Making: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.

PubMed

Truglio-Londrigan, Marie

2015-01-01

Shared decision making is a process characterized by a partnership between a nurse and a patient. The existence of a relationship does not ensure shared decision making. Little is known about what nurses need to know and do for this experience to take place. A qualitative descriptive study was implemented using Coalizzi's method. Semistructured interviews were held with patients, and 3 themes were uncovered. The findings suggest that a nurse's conduct aimed at drawing patients in and inviting them to participate in a conversation leads toward shared decisions. Infusion nurses may find this information useful as they engage their patients in shared decisions.

Individual responsibility as ground for priority setting in shared decision-making.

PubMed

Sandman, Lars; Gustavsson, Erik; Munthe, Christian

2016-10-01

Given healthcare resource constraints, voices are being raised to hold patients responsible for their health choices. In parallel, there is a growing trend towards shared decision-making, aiming to empower patients and give them more control over healthcare decisions. More power and control over decisions is usually taken to mean more responsibility for them. The trend of shared decision-making would therefore seem to strengthen the case for invoking individual responsibility in the healthcare priority setting. To analyse whether the implementation of shared decision-making would strengthen the argument for invoking individual responsibility in the healthcare priority setting using normative analysis. Shared decision-making does not constitute an independent argument in favour of employing individual responsibility since these notions rest on different underlying values. However, if a health system employs shared decision-making, individual responsibility may be used to limit resource implications of accommodating patient preferences outside professional standards and goals. If a healthcare system employs individual responsibility, high level dynamic shared decision-making implying a joint deliberation resulting in a decision where both parties are willing to revise initial standpoints may disarm common objections to the applicability of individual responsibility by virtue of making patients more likely to exercise adequate control of their own actions. However, if communication strategies applied in the shared decision-making are misaligned to the patient's initial capacities, arguments against individual responsibility might, on the other hand, gain strength. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Primum Non Nocere: is shared decision-making the answer?

PubMed

Santhirapala, Ramai; Moonesinghe, Ramani

2016-01-01

Surgical ambition is rising, with the Royal College of Surgeons reporting an increase in the number of procedures by a million over the past decade (Royal College of Surgeons. Surgery and the NHS in Numbers. Available from https://www.rcseng.ac.uk). Underpinning, this is a rapidly growing population, especially those in the over 85 age group, coupled with rising perioperative expertise; options for surgery are now present where conditions were once managed conservatively. Matching the right patient to the right procedure has never been so pertinent (Bader, Am Soc Anesthesiol 78(6), 2014). At the heart of these increasingly complex decisions, which may prove fatal or result in serious morbidity, lies the aspiration of shared decision-making (SDM) (Glance et al., N Engl J Med 370:1379-81, 2014). Shared decision-making is a patient-centred approach taking into account the beliefs, preferences and views of the patient as an expert in what is right for them, supported by clinicians who are the experts in diagnostics and valid therapeutic options (Coulter and Collins, Making shared decision-making a reality: no decision about me, without me, 2011). It has been described as the pinnacle of patient-centred care (Barry et al., N Engl J Med 366:780-1, 2012). In this commentary, we explore further the concept of shared decision-making, supported by a recent article which highlights critical deficits in current perioperative practice (Ankuda et al., Patient Educ Couns 94(3):328-33, 2014). This article was chosen for the purposes of this commentary as it is a large study across several surgical specialties investigating preoperative shared decision-making, and to our knowledge, the only of this kind.

Shared Decision-Making and Patient Empowerment in Preventive Cardiology.

PubMed

Kambhampati, Swetha; Ashvetiya, Tamara; Stone, Neil J; Blumenthal, Roger S; Martin, Seth S

2016-05-01

Shared decision-making, central to evidence-based medicine and good patient care, begins and ends with the patient. It is the process by which a clinician and a patient jointly make a health decision after discussing options, potential benefits and harms, and considering the patient's values and preferences. Patient empowerment is crucial to shared decision-making and occurs when a patient accepts responsibility for his or her health. They can then learn to solve their own problems with information and support from professionals. Patient empowerment begins with the provider acknowledging that patients are ultimately in control of their care and aims to increase a patient's capacity to think critically and make autonomous, informed decisions about their health. This article explores the various components of shared decision-making in scenarios such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia, heart failure, and diabetes. It explores barriers and the potential for improving medication adherence, disease awareness, and self-management of chronic disease.

Shared decision-making during surgical consultation for gallstones at a safety-net hospital.

PubMed

Mueck, Krislynn M; Leal, Isabel M; Wan, Charlie C; Goldberg, Braden F; Saunders, Tamara E; Millas, Stefanos G; Liang, Mike K; Ko, Tien C; Kao, Lillian S

2018-04-01

Understanding patient perspectives regarding shared decision-making is crucial to providing informed, patient-centered care. Little is known about perceptions of vulnerable patients regarding shared decision-making during surgical consultation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a validated tool reflects perceptions of shared decision-making accurately among patients seeking surgical consultation for gallstones at a safety-net hospital. A mixed methods study was conducted in a sample of adult patients with gallstones evaluated at a safety-net surgery clinic between May to July 2016. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after their initial surgical consultation and analyzed for emerging themes. Patients were administered the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and Autonomy Preference Scale. Univariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with shared decision-making and to compare the results of the surveys to those of the interviews. The majority of patients (N = 30) were female (90%), Hispanic (80%), Spanish-speaking (70%), and middle-aged (45.7 ± 16 years). The proportion of patients who perceived shared decision-making was greater in the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire versus the interviews (83% vs 27%, P < .01). Age, sex, race/ethnicity, primary language, diagnosis, Autonomy Preference Scale score, and decision for operation was not associated with shared decision-making. Contributory factors to this discordance include patient unfamiliarity with shared decision-making, deference to surgeon authority, lack of discussion about different treatments, and confusion between aligned versus shared decisions. Available questionnaires may overestimate shared decision-making in vulnerable patients suggesting the need for alternative or modifications to existing methods. Furthermore, such metrics should be assessed for correlation with patient-reported outcomes, such as satisfaction with decisions and health status

Effects of an educational programme on shared decision-making among Korean nurses.

PubMed

Jo, Kae-Hwa; An, Gyeong-Ju

2015-12-01

This study was conducted to examine the effects of an educational programme on shared decision-making on end-of-life care performance, moral sensitivity and attitude towards shared decision-making among Korean nurses. A quasi-experimental study with a non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest design was used. Forty-one clinical nurses were recruited as participants from two different university hospitals located in Daegu, Korea. Twenty nurses in the control group received no intervention, and 21 nurses in the experimental group received the educational programme on shared decision-making. Data were collected with a questionnaire covering end-of-life care performance, moral sensitivity and attitude towards shared decision-making. Analysis of the data was done with the chi-square test, t-test and Fisher's exact test using SPSS/Win 17.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The experimental group showed significantly higher scores in moral sensitivity and attitude towards shared decision-making after the intervention compared with the control group. This study suggests that the educational programme on shared decision-making was effective in increasing the moral sensitivity and attitude towards shared decision-making among Korean nurses. © 2014 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

National Evidence on the Use of Shared Decision Making in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening

PubMed Central

Han, Paul K. J.; Kobrin, Sarah; Breen, Nancy; Joseph, Djenaba A.; Li, Jun; Frosch, Dominick L.; Klabunde, Carrie N.

2013-01-01

PURPOSE Recent clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test (PSA screening) have recommended that clinicians practice shared decision making—a process involving clinician-patient discussion of the pros, cons, and uncertainties of screening. We undertook a study to determine the prevalence of shared decision making in both PSA screening and nonscreening, as well as patient characteristics associated with shared decision making. METHODS A nationally representative sample of 3,427 men aged 50 to 74 years participating in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey responded to questions on the extent of shared decision making (past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, and scientific uncertainty associated with PSA screening), PSA screening intensity (tests in past 5 years), and sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. RESULTS Nearly two-thirds (64.3%) of men reported no past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, or scientific uncertainty (no shared decision making); 27.8% reported discussion of 1 to 2 elements only (partial shared decision making); 8.0% reported discussion of all 3 elements (full shared decision making). Nearly one-half (44.2%) reported no PSA screening, 27.8% reported low-intensity (less-than-annual) screening, and 25.1% reported high-intensity (nearly annual) screening. Absence of shared decision making was more prevalent in men who were not screened; 88% (95% CI, 86.2%–90.1%) of nonscreened men reported no shared decision making compared with 39% (95% CI, 35.0%–43.3%) of men undergoing high-intensity screening. Extent of shared decision making was associated with black race, Hispanic ethnicity, higher education, health insurance, and physician recommendation. Screening intensity was associated with older age, higher education, usual source of medical care, and physician recommendation, as well as with partial vs no or full shared

National evidence on the use of shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening.

PubMed

Han, Paul K J; Kobrin, Sarah; Breen, Nancy; Joseph, Djenaba A; Li, Jun; Frosch, Dominick L; Klabunde, Carrie N

2013-01-01

Recent clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test (PSA screening) have recommended that clinicians practice shared decision making-a process involving clinician-patient discussion of the pros, cons, and uncertainties of screening. We undertook a study to determine the prevalence of shared decision making in both PSA screening and nonscreening, as well as patient characteristics associated with shared decision making. A nationally representative sample of 3,427 men aged 50 to 74 years participating in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey responded to questions on the extent of shared decision making (past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, and scientific uncertainty associated with PSA screening), PSA screening intensity (tests in past 5 years), and sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. Nearly two-thirds (64.3%) of men reported no past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, or scientific uncertainty (no shared decision making); 27.8% reported discussion of 1 to 2 elements only (partial shared decision making); 8.0% reported discussion of all 3 elements (full shared decision making). Nearly one-half (44.2%) reported no PSA screening, 27.8% reported low-intensity (less-than-annual) screening, and 25.1% reported high-intensity (nearly annual) screening. Absence of shared decision making was more prevalent in men who were not screened; 88% (95% CI, 86.2%-90.1%) of nonscreened men reported no shared decision making compared with 39% (95% CI, 35.0%-43.3%) of men undergoing high-intensity screening. Extent of shared decision making was associated with black race, Hispanic ethnicity, higher education, health insurance, and physician recommendation. Screening intensity was associated with older age, higher education, usual source of medical care, and physician recommendation, as well as with partial vs no or full shared decision making. Most US men

Shared Mind: Communication, Decision Making, and Autonomy in Serious Illness

PubMed Central

Epstein, Ronald M.; Street, Richard L.

2011-01-01

In the context of serious illness, individuals usually rely on others to help them think and feel their way through difficult decisions. To help us to understand why, when, and how individuals involve trusted others in sharing information, deliberation, and decision making, we offer the concept of shared mind—ways in which new ideas and perspectives can emerge through the sharing of thoughts, feelings, perceptions, meanings, and intentions among 2 or more people. We consider how shared mind manifests in relationships and organizations in general, building on studies of collaborative cognition, attunement, and sensemaking. Then, we explore how shared mind might be promoted through communication, when appropriate, and the implications of shared mind for decision making and patient autonomy. Next, we consider a continuum of patient-centered approaches to patient-clinician interactions. At one end of the continuum, an interactional approach promotes knowing the patient as a person, tailoring information, constructing preferences, achieving consensus, and promoting relational autonomy. At the other end, a transactional approach focuses on knowledge about the patient, information-as-commodity, negotiation, consent, and individual autonomy. Finally, we propose that autonomy and decision making should consider not only the individual perspectives of patients, their families, and members of the health care team, but also the perspectives that emerge from the interactions among them. By drawing attention to shared mind, clinicians can observe in what ways they can promote it through bidirectional sharing of information and engaging in shared deliberation. PMID:21911765

Shared mind: communication, decision making, and autonomy in serious illness.

PubMed

Epstein, Ronald M; Street, Richard L

2011-01-01

In the context of serious illness, individuals usually rely on others to help them think and feel their way through difficult decisions. To help us to understand why, when, and how individuals involve trusted others in sharing information, deliberation, and decision making, we offer the concept of shared mind-ways in which new ideas and perspectives can emerge through the sharing of thoughts, feelings, perceptions, meanings, and intentions among 2 or more people. We consider how shared mind manifests in relationships and organizations in general, building on studies of collaborative cognition, attunement, and sensemaking. Then, we explore how shared mind might be promoted through communication, when appropriate, and the implications of shared mind for decision making and patient autonomy. Next, we consider a continuum of patient-centered approaches to patient-clinician interactions. At one end of the continuum, an interactional approach promotes knowing the patient as a person, tailoring information, constructing preferences, achieving consensus, and promoting relational autonomy. At the other end, a transactional approach focuses on knowledge about the patient, information-as-commodity, negotiation, consent, and individual autonomy. Finally, we propose that autonomy and decision making should consider not only the individual perspectives of patients, their families, and members of the health care team, but also the perspectives that emerge from the interactions among them. By drawing attention to shared mind, clinicians can observe in what ways they can promote it through bidirectional sharing of information and engaging in shared deliberation.

Shared decision-making as an existential journey: Aiming for restored autonomous capacity.

PubMed

Gulbrandsen, Pål; Clayman, Marla L; Beach, Mary Catherine; Han, Paul K; Boss, Emily F; Ofstad, Eirik H; Elwyn, Glyn

2016-09-01

We describe the different ways in which illness represents an existential problem, and its implications for shared decision-making. We explore core concepts of shared decision-making in medical encounters (uncertainty, vulnerability, dependency, autonomy, power, trust, responsibility) to interpret and explain existing results and propose a broader understanding of shared-decision making for future studies. Existential aspects of being are physical, social, psychological, and spiritual. Uncertainty and vulnerability caused by illness expose these aspects and may lead to dependency on the provider, which underscores that autonomy is not just an individual status, but also a varying capacity, relational of nature. In shared decision-making, power and trust are important factors that may increase as well as decrease the patient's dependency, particularly as information overload may increase uncertainty. The fundamental uncertainty, state of vulnerability, and lack of power of the ill patient, imbue shared decision-making with a deeper existential significance and call for greater attention to the emotional and relational dimensions of care. Hence, we propose that the aim of shared decision-making should be restoration of the patient's autonomous capacity. In doing shared decision-making, care is needed to encompass existential aspects; informing and exploring preferences is not enough. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Consumer and relationship factors associated with shared decision making in mental health consultations.

PubMed

Matthias, Marianne S; Fukui, Sadaaki; Kukla, Marina; Eliacin, Johanne; Bonfils, Kelsey A; Firmin, Ruth L; Oles, Sylwia K; Adams, Erin L; Collins, Linda A; Salyers, Michelle P

2014-12-01

This study explored the association between shared decision making and consumers' illness management skills and consumer-provider relationships. Medication management appointments for 79 consumers were audio recorded. Independent coders rated overall shared decision making, minimum level of shared decision making, and consumer-provider agreement for 63 clients whose visit included a treatment decision. Mental health diagnoses, medication adherence, patient activation, illness management, working alliance, and length of consumer-provider relationships were also assessed. Correlation analyses were used to determine relationships among measures. Overall shared decision making was not associated with any variables. Minimum levels of shared decision making were associated with higher scores on the bond subscale of the Working Alliance Inventory, indicating a higher degree of liking and trust, and with better medication adherence. Agreement was associated with shorter consumer-provider relationships. Consumer-provider relationships and shared decision making might have a more nuanced association than originally thought.

Shared Decision Making Interventions: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence with Implications for Health Literacy.

PubMed

Stacey, Dawn; Hill, Sophie; McCaffery, Kirsten; Boland, Laura; Lewis, Krystina B; Horvat, Lidia

2017-01-01

Basic health literacy is required for making health decisions. The aim of this chapter is to discuss the use of shared decision making interventions for supporting patient involvement in making health decisions. The chapter provides a definition of shared decision making and discusses the link between shared decision making and the three levels of health literacy: functional, communicative/interactive, and critical. The Interprofessional Shared Decision Making Model is used to identify the various players involved: the patient, the family/surrogate/significant others, decision coach, and health care professionals. When patients are involved in shared decision making, they have better health outcomes, better healthcare experiences, and likely lower costs. Yet, their degree of involvement is influenced by their level of health literacy. Interventions to facilitate shared decision making are patient decision aids, decision coaching, and question prompt lists. Patient decision aids have been shown to improve knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and chosen options congruent with patients' values. Decision coaching improves knowledge and patient satisfaction. Question prompts also improve satisfaction. When shared decision making interventions have been evaluated with patients presumed to have lower health literacy, they appeared to be more beneficial to disadvantaged groups compared to those with higher literacy or better socioeconomic status. However, special attention needs to be applied when designing these interventions for populations with lower literacy. Two case exemplars are provided to illustrate the design and choice of interventions to better support patients with varying levels of health literacy. Despite evidence indicating these interventions are effective for involving patients in shared decision making, few are used in routine clinical practice. To increase their uptake, implementation strategies need to overcome barriers interfering with their use

Measuring shared decision making in the consultation: a comparison of the OPTION and Informed Decision Making instruments.

PubMed

Weiss, Marjorie C; Peters, Tim J

2008-01-01

To investigate the applied and conceptual relationship between two measures of shared decision making using the OPTION instrument developed in Wales and the Informed Decision Making instrument developed in Seattle, USA using audio-taped consultation data from a UK general practice population. Twelve general practitioners were recruited from 6 general practices in the southwest of England. One hundred twenty-three GP-patient consultations were audio-recorded. Audiotapes were sent off to, and rated by, respective experts in the use of the OPTION and the Informed Decision Making instruments. Compared to earlier work using the Informed Decision Making tool, consultations in this sample were shorter, had fewer decisions and tended to have a greater number of elements present. Similar to previous research using the OPTION, values using the OPTION instrument were low with two items, giving the patient opportunities to ask questions and checking patient understanding, exhibiting the most variability. Using a 'key' decision in each consultation as the basis for comparison, the Informed Decision Making score was not related to the overall OPTION score (Spearman's rho=0.14, p=0.13). Both instruments also predicted different 'best' and 'worst' doctors. Using a Bland-Altman plot for assessing agreement, the mean difference between the two measures was 1.11 (CI 0.66-1.56) and the limits of agreement were -3.94 to 6.16. There were several elements between the two instruments that appeared conceptually similar and correlations for these were generally higher. These were: discussing alternatives or options (Spearman's rho=0.35, p=0.0001), discussion of the patient's role in decision making (Spearman's rho=0.23, p=0.012), discussion of the pros/cons of the alternatives (Spearman's rho=0.20, p=0.024) and assessment of the patient's understanding (Spearman's rho=0.19, p=0.03). Measures of shared decision making are helpful in identifying those shared decision making skills which may

Parental decision making in pediatric otoplasty: The role of shared decision making in parental decisional conflict and decisional regret.

PubMed

Hong, Paul; Gorodzinsky, Ayala Y; Taylor, Benjamin A; Chorney, Jill MacLaren

2016-07-01

To date, there has been little research on shared decision making and decisional outcomes in pediatric surgery. The objectives of this study were to describe the level of decisional conflict and decisional regret experienced by parents considering otoplasty for their children, and to determine if they are related to perceptions of shared decision making. Prospective cohort clinical study. Sixty-five consecutive parents of children who underwent surgical consultation for otoplasty were prospectively enrolled. Participants completed the Demographic Form, the Decisional Conflict Scale, and the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire after the consultation visit. The consulting surgeons completed the physician version of the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire. Six months after surgery, parents completed the Decisional Regret Scale. The median decisional conflict was 15.63; 21 (32.8%) parents scored 25 or above, a previously defined cutoff indicating clinically significant decisional conflict. Parent ratings of shared decision making and decisional conflict were significantly negatively correlated (P < 0.001); however, there was no significant correlation between physician ratings of shared decision making and parental decisional conflict. Significant decisional regret was reported in two (3.2%) participants. Decisional regret and parent and physician ratings of shared decision making were both significantly negatively correlated (P = 0.044 and P = 0.001, respectively). Decisional regret and decisional conflict scores were significantly positively correlated (P = 0.001). Parent and physician ratings of shared decision making were correlated (intraclass correlation = 0.625, P < 0.001). Many parents experienced significant decisional conflict when making decisions about their child's elective surgical treatment. Fewer parents experienced significant decisional regret after the procedure. Parents who perceived themselves as being more involved in the decision making process

Social Background and School Continuation Decisions.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Mare, Robert D.

1980-01-01

Presents a model of the relationship between social background and school continuation decisions among White males born between 1900 and 1950. The model predicts a decline in the effects of social background by the last school transition. Reprint available from Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706. (AM)

Torts to contract? Moving from informed consent to shared decision-making.

PubMed

Monico, Edward P; Calise, Arthur; Calabro, Joseph

2008-01-01

Many claims of medical malpractice arise from a breakdown in communication between physician and patient. As a result, medical decision-making may change from an informed consent model to a shared decision-making strategy. Shared decision-making, a contract derivative, will trigger contract obligations and change the face of medical malpractice from tort to contract.

[Shared decision-making in acute psychiatric medicine : Contraindication or a challenge?

PubMed

Heres, S; Hamann, J

2017-09-01

The concept of shared decision-making (SDM) has existed since the 1990s in multiple fields of somatic medicine but has only been poorly applied in psychiatric clinical routine despite broad acceptance and promising outcomes in clinical studies on its positive effects. The concept itself and its practicability in mental health are carefully assessed and strategies for its future implementation in psychiatric medicine are presented in this article. Ongoing clinical studies probing some of those strategies are further outlined. On top of the ubiquitous shortage of time in clinical routine, psychiatrists report their concern about patients' limited abilities in sharing decisions and their own fear of potentially harmful decisions resulting from a shared process. Misinterpretation of shared decision-making restricting the health care professional to rather an informed choice scenario and their own adhesion to the traditional paternalistic decision-making approach further add to SDM's underutilization. Those hurdles could be overcome by communication skill workshops for all mental health care professionals, including nursing personnels, psychologists, social workers and physicians, as well as the use of decision aids and training courses for patients to motivate and empower them in sharing decisions with the medical staff. By this, the patient-centered treatment approach demanded by guidelines, carers and users could be further facilitated in psychiatric clinical routine.

Comparativism and the Grounds for Person-Centered Care and Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Herlitz, Anders

2017-01-01

This article provides a new argument and a new value-theoretical ground for person-centered care and shared decision making that ascribes to it the role of enabling rational choice in situations involving clinical choice. Rather than referring to good health outcomes and/or ethical grounds such as patient autonomy, it argues that a plausible justification and ground for person-centered care and shared decision making is preservation of rationality in the face of comparative non-determinacy in clinical settings. Often, no alternative treatment will be better than or equal to every other alternative. In the face of such comparative non-determinacy, Ruth Chang has argued that we can make rational decisions by invoking reasons that are created through acts of willing. This article transfers this view to clinical decision making and argues that shared decision making provides a solution to non-determinacy problems in clinical settings. This view of the role of shared decision making provides a new understanding of its nature, and it also allows us to better understand when caregivers should engage in shared decision making and when they should not. Copyright 2017 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.

Shared decision making in senior medical students: results from a national survey.

PubMed

Zeballos-Palacios, Claudia; Quispe, Renato; Mongilardi, Nicole; Diaz-Arocutipa, Carlos; Mendez-Davalos, Carlos; Lizarraga, Natalia; Paz, Aldo; Montori, Victor M; Malaga, German

2015-05-01

To explore perceptions and experiences of Peruvian medical students about observed, preferred, and feasible decision-making approaches. We surveyed senior medical students from 19 teaching hospitals in 4 major cities in Peru. The self-administered questionnaire collected demographic information, current approach, exposure to role models for and training in shared decision making, and perceptions of the pertinence and feasibility of the different decision-making approaches in general as well as in challenging scenarios. A total of 327 senior medical students (51% female) were included. The mean age was 25 years. Among all respondents, 2% reported receiving both theoretical and practical training in shared decision making. While 46% of students identified their current decision-making approach as clinician-as-perfect-agent, 50% of students identified their teachers with the paternalistic approach. Remarkably, 53% of students thought shared decision making should be the preferred approach and 50% considered it feasible in Peru. Among the 10 challenging scenarios, shared decision making reached a plurality (40%) in only one scenario (terminally ill patients). Despite limited exposure and training, Peruvian medical students aspire to practice shared decision making but their current attitude reflects the less participatory approaches they see role modeled by their teachers. © The Author(s) 2015.

Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision

PubMed Central

Edwards, Adrian; Elwyn, Glyn

2006-01-01

Abstract Background  Shared decision making has practical implications for everyday health care. However, it stems from largely theoretical frameworks and is not widely implemented in routine practice. Aims  We undertook an empirical study to inform understanding of shared decision making and how it can be operationalized more widely. Method  The study involved patients visiting UK general practitioners already well experienced in shared decision making. After these consultations, semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted and analysed using the constant comparative method of content analysis. Results  All patients described at least some components of shared decision making but half appeared to perceive the decision as shared and half as ‘patient‐led’. However, patients exhibited some uncertainty about who had made the decision, reflecting different meanings of decision making from those described in the literature. A distinction is indicated between the process of involvement (option portrayal, exchange of information and exploring preferences for who makes the decision) and the actual decisional responsibility (who makes the decision). The process of involvement appeared to deliver benefits for patients, not the action of making the decision. Preferences for decisional responsibility varied during some consultations, generating unsatisfactory interactions when actual decisional responsibility did not align with patient preferences at that stage of a consultation. However, when conducted well, shared decision making enhanced reported satisfaction, understanding and confidence in the decisions. Conclusions  Practitioners can focus more on the process of involving patients in decision making rather than attaching importance to who actually makes the decision. They also need to be aware of the potential for changing patient preferences for decisional responsibility during a consultation and address non‐alignment of patient preferences

Medical students, clinical preventive services, and shared decision-making.

PubMed

Keefe, Carole W; Thompson, Margaret E; Noel, Mary Margaret

2002-11-01

Improving access to preventive care requires addressing patient, provider, and systems barriers. Patients often lack knowledge or are skeptical about the importance of prevention. Physicians feel that they have too little time, are not trained to deliver preventive services, and are concerned about the effectiveness of prevention. We have implemented an educational module in the required family practice clerkship (1) to enhance medical student learning about common clinical preventive services and (2) to teach students how to inform and involve patients in shared decision making about those services. Students are asked to examine available evidence-based information for preventive screening services. They are encouraged to look at the recommendations of various organizations and use such resources as reports from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to determine recommendations they want to be knowledgeable about in talking with their patients. For learning shared decision making, students are trained to use a model adapted from Braddock and colleagues(1) to discuss specific screening services and to engage patients in the process of making informed decisions about what is best for their own health. The shared decision making is presented and modeled by faculty, discussed in small groups, and students practice using Web-based cases and simulations. The students are evaluated using formative and summative performance-based assessments as they interact with simulated patients about (1) screening for high blood cholesterol and other lipid abnormalities, (2) screening for colorectal cancer, (3) screening for prostate cancer, and (4) screening for breast cancer. The final student evaluation is a ten-minute, videotaped discussion with a simulated patient about screening for colorectal cancer that is graded against a checklist that focuses primarily on the elements of shared decision making. Our medical students appear quite willing to accept shared decision making as

Finding shared decisions in stakeholder networks: An agent-based approach

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Le Pira, Michela; Inturri, Giuseppe; Ignaccolo, Matteo; Pluchino, Alessandro; Rapisarda, Andrea

2017-01-01

We address the problem of a participatory decision-making process where a shared priority list of alternatives has to be obtained while avoiding inconsistent decisions. An agent-based model (ABM) is proposed to mimic this process in different social networks of stakeholders who interact according to an opinion dynamics model. Simulations' results show the efficacy of interaction in finding a transitive and, above all, shared decision. These findings are in agreement with real participation experiences regarding transport planning decisions and can give useful suggestions on how to plan an effective participation process for sustainable policy-making based on opinion consensus.

Implementation of shared decision making in anaesthesia and its influence on patient satisfaction.

PubMed

Flierler, W J; Nübling, M; Kasper, J; Heidegger, T

2013-07-01

There is a lack of data about the implementation of shared decision making in anaesthesia. To assess patients' preference to be involved in medical decision making and its influence on patient satisfaction, we studied 197 matched pairs (patients and anaesthetists) using two previously validated questionnaires. Before surgery, patients had to decide between general vs regional anaesthesia and, where appropriate, between conventional postoperative pain therapy vs catheter techniques. One hundred and eighty-six patients (94%) wished to be involved in shared decision making. One hundred and twenty-two patients (62%) experienced the exact amount of shared decision making that they wanted; 44 (22%) were slightly more involved and 20 (10%) slightly less involved in shared decision making than they desired. Preferences regarding involvement in shared decision making were similar between patients and anaesthetists with mean (SD) points of 54.1 (16.2) vs 56.4 (27.6) (p=0.244), respectively on a 0-100 scale; however, patients were found to have a stronger preference for a totally balanced shared decision-making process (65% vs 32%). Overall patient satisfaction was high: 88% were very satisfied and 12% satisfied with a mean (SD) value of 96.1 (10.6) on a 0-100 scale. Shared decision making is important for providing high levels of patient satisfaction. Anaesthesia © 2013 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Attitudes towards poverty, organizations, ethics and morals: Israeli social workers' shared decision making.

PubMed

Levin, Lia; Schwartz-Tayri, Talia

2017-06-01

Partnerships between service users and social workers are complex in nature and can be driven by both personal and contextual circumstances. This study sought to explore the relationship between social workers' involvement in shared decision making with service users, their attitudes towards service users in poverty, moral standards and health and social care organizations' policies towards shared decision making. Based on the responses of 225 licensed social workers from health and social care agencies in the public, private and third sectors in Israel, path analysis was used to test a hypothesized model. Structural attributions for poverty contributed to attitudes towards people who live in poverty, which led to shared decision making. Also, organizational support in shared decision making, and professional moral identity, contributed to ethical behaviour which led to shared decision making. The results of this analysis revealed that shared decision making may be a scion of branched roots planted in the relationship between ethics, organizations and Stigma. © 2016 The Authors. Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The Role of Patients: Shared Decision-Making.

PubMed

Beers, Emily; Lee Nilsen, Marci; Johnson, Jonas T

2017-08-01

Shared decision-making affords patients and their families the autonomy to make difficult decisions after receiving comprehensive information about medical facts and treatment options. It is essential that patients' values are respected. The essential steps include first informing patients of the need for a decision, then explaining the various facts involved; after which, it is important to elicit patients' preferences and goals. Once the treatment options and outcomes important to patients are identified, an actual decision can be made. This activity is complex and requires a commitment of time and is enhanced through employment of a multidisciplinary team approach. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

How is shared decision-making defined among African-Americans with diabetes?

PubMed

Peek, Monica E; Quinn, Michael T; Gorawara-Bhat, Rita; Odoms-Young, Angela; Wilson, Shannon C; Chin, Marshall H

2008-09-01

This study investigates how shared decision-making (SDM) is defined by African-American patients with diabetes, and compares patients' conceptualization of SDM with the Charles model. We utilized race-concordant interviewers/moderators to conduct in-depth interviews and focus groups among a purposeful sample of African-American patients with diabetes. Each interview/focus group was audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and imported into Atlas.ti software. Coding was done using an iterative process and each transcription was independently coded by two members of the research team. Although the conceptual domains were similar, patient definitions of what it means to "share" in the decision-making process differed significantly from the Charles model of SDM. Patients stressed the value of being able to "tell their story and be heard" by physicians, emphasized the importance of information sharing rather than decision-making sharing, and included an acceptable role for non-adherence as a mechanism to express control and act on treatment preferences. Current instruments may not accurately measure decision-making preferences of African-American patients with diabetes. Future research should develop instruments to effectively measure decision-making preferences within this population. Emphasizing information-sharing that validates patients' experiences may be particularly meaningful to African-Americans with diabetes.

Patient and physician views of shared decision making in cancer.

PubMed

Tamirisa, Nina P; Goodwin, James S; Kandalam, Arti; Linder, Suzanne K; Weller, Susan; Turrubiate, Stella; Silva, Colleen; Riall, Taylor S

2017-12-01

Engaging patients in shared decision making involves patient knowledge of treatment options and physician elicitation of patient preferences. Our aim was to explore patient and physician perceptions of shared decision making in clinical encounters for cancer care. Patients and physicians were asked open-ended questions regarding their perceptions of shared decision making throughout their cancer care. Transcripts of interviews were coded and analysed for shared decision-making themes. At an academic medical centre, 20 cancer patients with a range of cancer diagnoses, stages of cancer and time from diagnosis, and eight physicians involved in cancer care were individually interviewed. Most physicians reported providing patients with written information. However, most patients reported that written information was too detailed and felt that the physicians did not assess the level of information they wished to receive. Most patients wanted to play an active role in the treatment decision, but also wanted the physician's recommendation, such as what their physician would choose for him/herself or a family member in a similar situation. While physicians stated that they incorporated patient autonomy in decision making, most provided data without making treatment recommendations in the format preferred by most patients. We identified several communication gaps in cancer care. While patients want to be involved in the decision-making process, they also want physicians to provide evidence-based recommendations in the context of their individual preferences. However, physicians often are reluctant to provide a recommendation that will bias the patient. © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Shared decision making: empowering the bedside nurse.

PubMed

Slack, Stephanie M; Boguslawski, Jean M; Eickhoff, Rachel M; Klein, Kristi A; Pepin, Teresa M; Schrandt, Kevin; Wise, Carrie A; Zylstra, Jody A

2005-12-01

Shared decision making is a process that has empowered specialty nurses at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, to solve a practice concern. Staff nurses recognized a lack of concise, collated information available that described what nurses need to know when caring for patients receiving chemotherapy. Many aspects of the administration process were knowledge and experience based and not easily retrievable. The Hematology/Oncology/Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Practice Committee identified this as a significant practice issue. Ideas were brainstormed regarding how to make the information available to nursing colleagues. The Chemotherapy Yellow Pages is a resource that was developed to facilitate the rapid retrieval of pertinent information for bedside nurses. The content of this article outlines a'model of shared decision making and the processes used to address and resolve the practice concern.

Recent Patterns in Shared Decision Making for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing in the United States.

PubMed

Fedewa, Stacey A; Gansler, Ted; Smith, Robert; Sauer, Ann Goding; Wender, Richard; Brawley, Otis W; Jemal, Ahmedin

2018-03-01

Previous studies report infrequent use of shared decision making for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. It is unknown whether this pattern has changed recently considering increased emphasis on shared decision making in prostate cancer screening recommendations. Thus, the objective of this study is to examine recent changes in shared decision making. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study among men aged 50 years and older in the United States using 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data (n = 9,598). Changes in receipt of shared decision making were expressed as adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analyses were stratified on PSA testing (recent [in the past year] or no testing). Elements of shared decision making assessed included the patient being informed about the advantages only, advantages and disadvantages, and full shared decision making (advantages, disadvantages, and uncertainties). Among men with recent PSA testing, 58.5% and 62.6% reported having received ≥1 element of shared decision making in 2010 and 2015, respectively ( P = .054, aPR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.11). Between 2010 and 2015, being told only about the advantages of PSA testing significantly declined (aPR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96) and full shared decision making prevalence significantly increased (aPR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.28-1.79) in recently tested men. Among men without prior PSA testing, 10% reported ≥1 element of shared decision making, which did not change with time. Between 2010 and 2015, there was no increase in shared decision making among men with recent PSA testing though there was a shift away from only being told about the advantages of PSA testing towards full shared decision making. Many men receiving PSA testing did not receive shared decision making. © 2018 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

Genital surgery for disorders of sex development: implementing a shared decision-making approach.

PubMed

Karkazis, Katrina; Tamar-Mattis, Anne; Kon, Alexander A

2010-08-01

Ongoing controversy surrounds early genital surgery for children with disorders of sex development, making decisions about these procedures extraordinarily complex. Professional organizations have encouraged healthcare providers to adopt shared decision-making due to its broad potential to improve the decision-making process, perhaps most so when data are lacking, when there is no clear "best-choice" treatment, when decisions involve more than one choice, where each choice has both advantages and disadvantages, and where the ranking of options depends heavily on the decision-maker's values. We present a 6-step model for shared decision-making in decisions about genital surgery for disorders of sex development: (1) Set the stage and develop an appropriate team; (2) Establish preferences for information and roles in decision-making; (3) Perceive and address emotions; (4) Define concerns and values; (5) Identify options and present evidence; and (6) Share responsibility for making a decision. As long as controversy persists regarding surgery for DSD, an SDM process can facilitate the increased sharing of relevant information essential for making important health care decisions.

Consideration of Shared Decision Making in Nursing: A Review of Clinicians’ Perceptions and Interventions

PubMed Central

Clark, Noreen M; Nelson, Belinda W; Valerio, Melissa A; Gong, Z. Molly; Taylor-Fishwick, Judith C; Fletcher, Monica

2009-01-01

As the number of individuals with chronic illness increases so has the need for strategies to enable nurses to engage them effectively in daily management of their conditions. Shared decision making between patients and nurses is one approach frequently discussed in the literature. This paper reviews recent studies of shared decision making and the meaning of findings for the nurse-patient relationship. Patients likely to prefer to engage in shared decision making are younger and have higher levels of education. However, there is a lack of evidence for the effect of shared decision making on patient outcomes. Further, studies are needed to examine shared decision making when the patient is a child. Nurses are professionally suited to engage their patients fully in treatment plans. More evidence for how shared decision making affects outcomes and how nurses can successfully achieve such engagement is needed. PMID:19855848

Development of shared decision-making resources to help inform difficult healthcare decisions: An example focused on dysvascular partial foot and transtibial amputations.

PubMed

Quigley, Matthew; Dillon, Michael P; Fatone, Stefania

2018-02-01

Shared decision making is a consultative process designed to encourage patient participation in decision making by providing accurate information about the treatment options and supporting deliberation with the clinicians about treatment options. The process can be supported by resources such as decision aids and discussion guides designed to inform and facilitate often difficult conversations. As this process increases in use, there is opportunity to raise awareness of shared decision making and the international standards used to guide the development of quality resources for use in areas of prosthetic/orthotic care. To describe the process used to develop shared decision-making resources, using an illustrative example focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Development process: The International Patient Decision Aid Standards were used to guide the development of the decision aid and discussion guide focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Examples from these shared decision-making resources help illuminate the stages of development including scoping and design, research synthesis, iterative development of a prototype, and preliminary testing with patients and clinicians not involved in the development process. Lessons learnt through the process, such as using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards checklist and development guidelines, may help inform others wanting to develop similar shared decision-making resources given the applicability of shared decision making to many areas of prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice. Clinical relevance Shared decision making is a process designed to guide conversations that help patients make an informed decision about their healthcare. Raising awareness of shared decision making and the international standards for development of high-quality decision aids and discussion guides is important

Shared Decision Making and Autonomy Among US Participants with Multiple Sclerosis in the NARCOMS Registry

PubMed Central

Thomas, Nina; Tyry, Tuula; Fox, Robert J.; Salter, Amber

2017-01-01

Background: Treatment decisions in multiple sclerosis (MS) are affected by many factors and are made by the patient, doctor, or both. With new disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) emerging, the complexity surrounding treatment decisions is increasing, further emphasizing the importance of understanding decision-making preferences. Methods: North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry participants completed the Fall 2014 Update survey, which included the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). The CPS consists of five images showing different patient/doctor roles in treatment decision making. The images were collapsed to three categories: patient-centered, shared, and physician-centered decision-making preferences. Associations between decision-making preferences and demographic and clinical factors were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of 7009 participants, 79.3% were women and 93.5% were white (mean [SD] age, 57.6 [10.3] years); 56.7% reported a history of relapses. Patient-centered decision making was most commonly preferred by participants (47.9%), followed by shared decision making (SDM; 42.8%). SDM preference was higher for women and those taking DMTs and increased with age and disease duration (all P < .05). Patient-centered decisions were most common for respondents not taking a DMT at the time of the survey and were preferred by those who had no DMT history compared with those who had previously taken a DMT (P < .0001). There was no difference in SDM preference by current MS disease course after adjusting for other disease-related factors. Conclusions: Responders reported most commonly considering their doctor's opinion before making a treatment decision and making decisions jointly with their doctor. DMT use, gender, and age were associated with decision-making preference. PMID:29270088

A communication model of shared decision making: accounting for cancer treatment decisions.

PubMed

Siminoff, Laura A; Step, Mary M

2005-07-01

The authors present a communication model of shared decision making (CMSDM) that explicitly identifies the communication process as the vehicle for decision making in cancer treatment. In this view, decision making is necessarily a sociocommunicative process whereby people enter into a relationship, exchange information, establish preferences, and choose a course of action. The model derives from contemporary notions of behavioral decision making and ethical conceptions of the doctor-patient relationship. This article briefly reviews the theoretical approaches to decision making, notes deficiencies, and embeds a more socially based process into the dynamics of the physician-patient relationship, focusing on cancer treatment decisions. In the CMSDM, decisions depend on (a) antecedent factors that have potential to influence communication, (b) jointly constructed communication climate, and (c) treatment preferences established by the physician and the patient.

Shared decision making in mental health: the importance for current clinical practice.

PubMed

Alguera-Lara, Victoria; Dowsey, Michelle M; Ride, Jemimah; Kinder, Skye; Castle, David

2017-12-01

We reviewed the literature on shared decision making (regarding treatments in psychiatry), with a view to informing our understanding of the decision making process and the barriers that exist in clinical practice. Narrative review of published English-language articles. After culling, 18 relevant articles were included. Themes identified included models of psychiatric care, benefits for patients, and barriers. There is a paucity of published studies specifically related to antipsychotic medications. Shared decision making is a central part of the recovery paradigm and is of increasing importance in mental health service delivery. The field needs to better understand the basis on which decisions are reached regarding psychiatric treatments. Discrete choice experiments might be useful to inform the development of tools to assist shared decision making in psychiatry.

Shared decision making in Australia in 2017.

PubMed

Trevena, Lyndal; Shepherd, Heather L; Bonner, Carissa; Jansen, Jesse; Cust, Anne E; Leask, Julie; Shadbolt, Narelle; Del Mar, Chris; McCaffery, Kirsten; Hoffmann, Tammy

2017-06-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is now firmly established within national clinical standards for accrediting hospitals, day procedure services, public dental services and medical education in Australia, with plans to align general practice, aged care and disability service. Implementation of these standards and training of health professionals is a key challenge for the Australian health sector at this time. Consumer involvement in health research, policy and clinical service governance has also increased, with a major focus on encouraging patients to ask questions during their clinical care. Tools to support shared decision making are increasingly used but there is a need for more systemic approaches to their development, cultural adaptation and implementation. Sustainable solutions to ensure tools are kept up-to-date with the best available evidence will be important for the future. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Informed shared decision-making supported by decision coaches for women with ductal carcinoma in situ: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

PubMed

Berger-Höger, Birte; Liethmann, Katrin; Mühlhauser, Ingrid; Haastert, Burkhard; Steckelberg, Anke

2015-10-12

Women with breast cancer want to participate in treatment decision-making. Guidelines have confirmed the right of informed shared decision-making. However, previous research has shown that the implementation of informed shared decision-making is suboptimal for reasons of limited resources of physicians, power imbalances between patients and physicians and missing evidence-based patient information. We developed an informed shared decision-making program for women with primary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The program provides decision coaching for women by specialized nurses and aims at supporting involvement in decision-making and informed choices. In this trial, the informed shared decision-making program will be evaluated in breast care centers. A cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted to compare the informed shared decision-making program with standard care. The program comprises an evidence-based patient decision aid and training of physicians (2 hours) and specialized breast care and oncology nurses (4 days) in informed shared decision-making. Sixteen certified breast care centers will be included, with 192 women with primary DCIS being recruited. Primary outcome is the extent of patients' involvement in shared decision-making as assessed by the MAPPIN-Odyad (Multifocal approach to the 'sharing' in shared decision-making: observer instrument dyad). Secondary endpoints include the sub-measures of the MAPPIN-inventory (MAPPIN-Onurse, MAPPIN-Ophysician, MAPPIN-Opatient, MAPPIN-Qnurse, MAPPIN-Qpatient and MAPPIN-Qphysician), informed choice, decisional conflict and the duration of encounters. It is expected that decision coaching and the provision of evidence-based patient decision aids will increase patients' involvement in decision-making with informed choices and reduce decisional conflicts and duration of physician encounters. Furthermore, an accompanying process evaluation will be conducted. To our knowledge, this is the first study

Shared decision making in chronic care in the context of evidence based practice in nursing.

PubMed

Friesen-Storms, Jolanda H H M; Bours, Gerrie J J W; van der Weijden, Trudy; Beurskens, Anna J H M

2015-01-01

In the decision-making environment of evidence-based practice, the following three sources of information must be integrated: research evidence of the intervention, clinical expertise, and the patient's values. In reality, evidence-based practice usually focuses on research evidence (which may be translated into clinical practice guidelines) and clinical expertise without considering the individual patient's values. The shared decision-making model seems to be helpful in the integration of the individual patient's values in evidence-based practice. We aim to discuss the relevance of shared decision making in chronic care and to suggest how it can be integrated with evidence-based practice in nursing. We start by describing the following three possible approaches to guide the decision-making process: the paternalistic approach, the informed approach, and the shared decision-making approach. Implementation of shared decision making has gained considerable interest in cases lacking a strong best-treatment recommendation, and when the available treatment options are equivalent to some extent. We discuss that in chronic care it is important to always invite the patient to participate in the decision-making process. We delineate the following six attributes of health care interventions in chronic care that influence the degree of shared decision making: the level of research evidence, the number of available intervention options, the burden of side effects, the impact on lifestyle, the patient group values, and the impact on resources. Furthermore, the patient's willingness to participate in shared decision making, the clinical expertise of the nurse, and the context in which the decision making takes place affect the shared decision-making process. A knowledgeable and skilled nurse with a positive attitude towards shared decision making—integrated with evidence-based practice—can facilitate the shared decision-making process. We conclude that nurses as well as other

How is Shared Decision-Making Defined among African-Americans with Diabetes?

PubMed Central

Peek, Monica E.; Quinn, Michael T.; Gorawara-Bhat, Rita; Odoms-Young, Angela; Wilson, Shannon C.; Chin, Marshall H.

2011-01-01

Objective This study investigates how shared decision-making (SDM) is defined by African-American patients with diabetes, and compares patients’ conceptualization of SDM with the Charles model. Methods We utilized race-concordant interviewers/moderators to conduct in-depth interviews and focus groups among a purposeful sample of African-American patients with diabetes. Each interview/focus group was audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and imported into Atlas.ti software. Coding was done using an iterative process and each transcription was independently coded by two members of the research team. Results Although the conceptual domains were similar, patient definitions of what it means to “share” in the decision-making process differed significantly from the Charles model of SDM. Patients stressed the value of being able to “tell their story and be heard” by physicians, emphasized the importance of information sharing rather than decision-making sharing, and included an acceptable role for non-adherence as a mechanism to express control and act on treatment preferences. Conclusion Current instruments may not accurately measure decision-making preferences of African-American patients with diabetes. Practice Implications Future research should develop instruments to effectively measure decision-making preferences within this population. Emphasizing information-sharing that validates patients’ experiences may be particularly meaningful to African-Americans with diabetes. PMID:18684581

Developing and pilot testing a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice.

PubMed

Finderup, Jeanette; Jensen, Jens K D; Lomborg, Kirsten

2018-04-17

Evidence is inconclusive on how best to guide the patient in decision-making around haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis choice. International guidelines recommend involvement of the patient in the decision to choose the dialysis modality most suitable for the individual patient. Nevertheless, studies have shown lack of involvement of the patient in decision-making. To develop and pilot test an intervention for shared decision-making targeting the choice of dialysis modality. This study reflects the first two phases of a complex intervention design: phase 1, the development process and phase 2, feasibility and piloting. Because decision aids were a part of the intervention, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards were considered. The pilot test included both the intervention and the feasibility of the validated shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM Q9) and the Decision Quality Measure (DQM) applied to evaluate the intervention. A total of 137 patients tested the intervention. After the intervention, 80% of the patients chose dialysis at home reflecting an increase of 23% in starting dialysis at home prior to the study. The SDM Q9 showed the majority of the patients experienced this intervention as shared decision-making. An intervention based on shared decision-making supported by decision aids seemed to increase the number of patients choosing home dialysis. The SDM Q9 and DQM were feasible evaluation tools. Further research is needed to gain insight into the patients' experiences of involvement and the implications for their choice of dialysis modality. © 2018 European Dialysis and Transplant Nurses Association/European Renal Care Association.

Core Competencies for Shared Decision Making Training Programs: Insights From an International, Interdisciplinary Working Group

PubMed Central

Légaré, France; Moumjid-Ferdjaoui, Nora; Drolet, Renée; Stacey, Dawn; Härter, Martin; Bastian, Hilda; Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique; Borduas, Francine; Charles, Cathy; Coulter, Angela; Desroches, Sophie; Friedrich, Gwendolyn; Gafni, Amiram; Graham, Ian D.; Labrecque, Michel; LeBlanc, Annie; Légaré, Jean; Politi, Mary; Sargeant, Joan; Thomson, Richard

2014-01-01

Shared decision making is now making inroads in health care professionals’ continuing education curriculum, but there is no consensus on what core competencies are required by clinicians for effectively involving patients in health-related decisions. Ready-made programs for training clinicians in shared decision making are in high demand, but existing programs vary widely in their theoretical foundations, length, and content. An international, interdisciplinary group of 25 individuals met in 2012 to discuss theoretical approaches to making health-related decisions, compare notes on existing programs, take stock of stakeholders concerns, and deliberate on core competencies. This article summarizes the results of those discussions. Some participants believed that existing models already provide a sufficient conceptual basis for developing and implementing shared decision making competency-based training programs on a wide scale. Others argued that this would be premature as there is still no consensus on the definition of shared decision making or sufficient evidence to recommend specific competencies for implementing shared decision making. However, all participants agreed that there were 2 broad types of competencies that clinicians need for implementing shared decision making: relational competencies and risk communication competencies. Further multidisciplinary research could broaden and deepen our understanding of core competencies for shared decision making training. PMID:24347105

Research in Brief: Shared Decision Making Enhances Instructional Leadership.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lindle, Joan Clark

1992-01-01

A study of three middle school principals about their instructional leadership activities before and after the establishment of shared decision making revealed an enhancement of leadership. The nature of the middle school teacher's role demands participative leadership and communication and decision making revolved around instructional issues.…

Ethics of End of Life Decisions in Pediatrics: A Narrative Review of the Roles of Caregivers, Shared Decision-Making, and Patient Centered Values.

PubMed

Santoro, Jonathan D; Bennett, Mariko

2018-04-26

Background: This manuscript reviews unique aspects of end of life decision-making in pediatrics. Methods: A narrative literature review of pediatric end of life issues was performed in the English language. Results: While a paternalistic approach is typically applied to children with life-limiting medical prognoses, the cognitive, language, and physical variability in this patient population is wide and worthy of review. In end of life discussions in pediatrics, the consideration of a child’s input is often not reviewed in depth, although a shared decision-making model is ideal for use, even for children with presumed limitations due to age. This narrative review of end of life decision-making in pediatric care explores nomenclature, the introduction of the concept of death, relevant historical studies, limitations to the shared decision-making model, the current state of end of life autonomy in pediatrics, and future directions and needs. Although progress is being made toward a more uniform and standardized approach to care, few non-institutional protocols exist. Complicating factors in the lack of guidelines include the unique facets of pediatric end of life care, including physical age, paternalism, the cognitive and language capacity of patients, subconscious influencers of parents, and normative values of death in pediatrics. Conclusions: Although there have been strides in end of life decision-making in pediatrics, further investigation and research is needed in this field.

Promoting Shared Decision Making in Disorders of Sex Development (DSD): Decision Aids and Support Tools.

PubMed

Siminoff, L A; Sandberg, D E

2015-05-01

Specific complaints and grievances from adult patients with disorders of sex development (DSD), and their advocates center around the lack of information or misinformation they were given about their condition and feeling stigmatized and shamed by the secrecy surrounding their condition and its management. Many also attribute poor sexual function to damaging genital surgery and/or repeated, insensitive genital examinations. These reports suggest the need to reconsider the decision-making process for the treatment of children born with DSD. This paper proposes that shared decision making, an important concept in adult health care, be operationalized for the major decisions commonly encountered in DSD care and facilitated through the utilization of decision aids and support tools. This approach may help patients and their families make informed decisions that are better aligned with their personal values and goals. It may also lead to greater confidence in decision making with greater satisfaction and less regret. A brief review of the past and current approach to DSD decision making is provided, along with a review of shared decision making and decision aids and support tools. A case study explores the need and potential utility of this suggested new approach. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Creating and sharing clinical decision support content with Web 2.0: Issues and examples.

PubMed

Wright, Adam; Bates, David W; Middleton, Blackford; Hongsermeier, Tonya; Kashyap, Vipul; Thomas, Sean M; Sittig, Dean F

2009-04-01

Clinical decision support is a powerful tool for improving healthcare quality and patient safety. However, developing a comprehensive package of decision support interventions is costly and difficult. If used well, Web 2.0 methods may make it easier and less costly to develop decision support. Web 2.0 is characterized by online communities, open sharing, interactivity and collaboration. Although most previous attempts at sharing clinical decision support content have worked outside of the Web 2.0 framework, several initiatives are beginning to use Web 2.0 to share and collaborate on decision support content. We present case studies of three efforts: the Clinfowiki, a world-accessible wiki for developing decision support content; Partners Healthcare eRooms, web-based tools for developing decision support within a single organization; and Epic Systems Corporation's Community Library, a repository for sharing decision support content for customers of a single clinical system vendor. We evaluate the potential of Web 2.0 technologies to enable collaborative development and sharing of clinical decision support systems through the lens of three case studies; analyzing technical, legal and organizational issues for developers, consumers and organizers of clinical decision support content in Web 2.0. We believe the case for Web 2.0 as a tool for collaborating on clinical decision support content appears strong, particularly for collaborative content development within an organization.

Why shared decision making is not good enough: lessons from patients.

PubMed

Olthuis, Gert; Leget, Carlo; Grypdonck, Mieke

2014-07-01

A closer look at the lived illness experiences of medical professionals themselves shows that shared decision making is in need of a logic of care. This paper underlines that medical decision making inevitably takes place in a messy and uncertain context in which sharing responsibilities may impose a considerable burden on patients. A better understanding of patients' lived experiences enables healthcare professionals to attune to what individual patients deem important in their lives.This will contribute to making medical decisions in a good and caring manner, taking into account the lived experience of being ill.

Shared decision making: relevant concepts and facilitating strategies.

PubMed

Bae, Jong-Myon

2017-01-01

As the paradigm in healthcare nowadays is the evidence-based, patient-centered decision making, the issue of shared decision making (SDM) is highlighted. The aims of this manuscript were to look at the relevant concepts and suggest the facilitating strategies for overcoming barriers of conducting SDM. While the definitions of SDM were discordant, several concepts such as good communication, individual autonomy, patient participants, and patient-centered decision-making were involved. Further, the facilitating strategies of SDM were to educate and train physician, to apply clinical practice guidelines and patient decision aids, to develop valid measurement tools for evaluation of SDM processes, and to investigate the impact of SDM.

Call for shared decision making in China: Challenges and opportunities.

PubMed

Yao, Mi; Finnikin, Samuel; Cheng, K K

2017-06-01

China's healthcare system has undergone extensive changes over recent years and the most recent reforms are designed to shift the emphasis away from hospital based services towards a more primary care based system. There is an increasing recognition that shared decision making needs to play a central role in the delivery of healthcare in China, but there are several significant barriers to overcome before this aspiration becomes a reality. Doctor-patient relationships in China are poor, consultations are often brief transactions and levels of trust are low. Implementing a shared decision making process developed in the Western World may be hampered by cultural differences, although this remains an under-researched area. There is, however, a suggestion that the academic community is starting to take an interest in encouraging shared decision making in practice and indications that the Chinese public may be willing to consider this new approach to healthcare. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Shared decision-making – transferring research into practice: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

PubMed Central

Dolan, James G.

2008-01-01

Objective To illustrate how the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be used to promote shared decision-making and enhance clinician-patient communication. Methods Tutorial review. Results The AHP promotes shared decision making by creating a framework that is used to define the decision, summarize the information available, prioritize information needs, elicit preferences and values, and foster meaningful communication among decision stakeholders. Conclusions The AHP and related multi-criteria methods have the potential for improving the quality of clinical decisions and overcoming current barriers to implementing shared decision making in busy clinical settings. Further research is needed to determine the best way to implement these tools and to determine their effectiveness. Practice Implications Many clinical decisions involve preference-based trade-offs between competing risks and benefits. The AHP is a well-developed method that provides a practical approach for improving patient-provider communication, clinical decision-making, and the quality of patient care in these situations. PMID:18760559

A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.

PubMed

Truglio-Londrigan, Marie; Slyer, Jason T; Singleton, Joanne K; Worral, Priscilla

The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize the best available evidence related to the meaningfulness of internal and external influences on shared-decision making for adult patients and health care providers in all health care settings.The specific questions to be answered are: BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care is emphasized in today's healthcare arena. This emphasis is seen in the works of the International Alliance of Patients' Organizations (IAOP) who describe patient-centered healthcare as care that is aimed at addressing the needs and preferences of patients. The IAOP presents five principles which are foundational to the achievement of patient-centered healthcare: respect, choice, policy, access and support, as well as information. These five principles are further described as:Within the description of these five principles the idea of shared decision-making is clearly evident.The concept of shared decision-making began to appear in the literature in the 1990s. It is defined as a "process jointly shared by patients and their health care provider. It aims at helping patients play an active role in decisions concerning their health, which is the ultimate goal of patient-centered care." The details of the shared decision-making process are complex and consist of a series of steps including:Three overall representative decision-making models are noted in contemporary literature. These three models include: paternalistic, informed decision-making, and shared decision-making. The paternalistic model is an autocratic style of decision-making where the healthcare provider carries out the care from the perspective of knowing what is best for the patient and therefore makes all decisions. The informed decision-making model takes place as the information needed to make decisions is conveyed to the patient and the patient makes the decisions without the healthcare provider involvement. Finally, the shared decision-making model is representative of a

Core competencies for shared decision making training programs: insights from an international, interdisciplinary working group.

PubMed

Légaré, France; Moumjid-Ferdjaoui, Nora; Drolet, Renée; Stacey, Dawn; Härter, Martin; Bastian, Hilda; Beaulieu, Marie-Dominique; Borduas, Francine; Charles, Cathy; Coulter, Angela; Desroches, Sophie; Friedrich, Gwendolyn; Gafni, Amiram; Graham, Ian D; Labrecque, Michel; LeBlanc, Annie; Légaré, Jean; Politi, Mary; Sargeant, Joan; Thomson, Richard

2013-01-01

Shared decision making is now making inroads in health care professionals' continuing education curriculum, but there is no consensus on what core competencies are required by clinicians for effectively involving patients in health-related decisions. Ready-made programs for training clinicians in shared decision making are in high demand, but existing programs vary widely in their theoretical foundations, length, and content. An international, interdisciplinary group of 25 individuals met in 2012 to discuss theoretical approaches to making health-related decisions, compare notes on existing programs, take stock of stakeholders concerns, and deliberate on core competencies. This article summarizes the results of those discussions. Some participants believed that existing models already provide a sufficient conceptual basis for developing and implementing shared decision making competency-based training programs on a wide scale. Others argued that this would be premature as there is still no consensus on the definition of shared decision making or sufficient evidence to recommend specific competencies for implementing shared decision making. However, all participants agreed that there were 2 broad types of competencies that clinicians need for implementing shared decision making: relational competencies and risk communication competencies. Further multidisciplinary research could broaden and deepen our understanding of core competencies for shared decision making training. Copyright © 2013 The Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions, the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education, and the Council on CME, Association for Hospital Medical Education.

Shared decision making interventions for people with mental health conditions.

PubMed

Duncan, Edward; Best, Catherine; Hagen, Suzanne

2010-01-20

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life course. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual, their family and society. Increasingly partnership models of mental health care have been advocated and enshrined in international healthcare policy. Shared decision making is one such partnership approach. Shared decision making is a form of patient-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision. This is advocated on the basis that patients have a right to self-determination and also in the expectation that it will increase treatment adherence. To assess the effects of provider-, consumer- or carer-directed shared decision making interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, on a range of outcomes including: patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and health service outcomes. We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2008), EMBASE (1980 to November 2008), PsycINFO (1967 to November 2008), CINAHL (1982 to November 2008), British Nursing Index and Archive (1985 to November 2008) and SIGLE (1890 to September 2005 (database end date)). We also searched online trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials (q-RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs); and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of interventions to increase shared decision making in people with mental health conditions (by DSM or ICD-10 criteria). Data on recruitment methods, eligibility criteria, sample characteristics, interventions, outcome measures, participant flow and outcome data from each study were extracted by one author and checked by another. Data are presented in a narrative

Novel Statistical Approach to Determine Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Patients' Perspectives on Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Siegel, Corey A; Lofland, Jennifer H; Naim, Ahmad; Gollins, Jan; Walls, Danielle M; Rudder, Laura E; Reynolds, Chuck

2016-02-01

Limited information is available on patients' perspectives of shared decision-making practices used in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The aim of this study was to examine patient insights regarding shared decision making among patients with IBD using novel statistical technology to analyze qualitative data. Two 10-patient focus groups (10 ulcerative colitis patients and 10 Crohn's disease patients) were conducted in Chicago in January 2012 to explore patients' experiences, concerns, and preferences related to shared decision making. Key audio excerpts of focus group insights were embedded within a 25-min online patient survey and used for moment-to-moment affect trace analysis. A total of 355 IBD patients completed the survey (ulcerative colitis 51 %; Crohn's disease 49 %; female 54 %; 18-50 years of age 50 %). The majority of patients (66 %) reported increased satisfaction when they participated in shared decision making. Three unique patient clusters were identified based on their involvement in shared decision making: satisfied, content, and dissatisfied. Satisfied patients (18 %) had a positive physician relationship and a high level of trust with their physician. Content patients (48 %) had a moderate level of trust with their physician. Dissatisfied patients (34 %) had a life greatly affected by IBD, a low level of trust of their physician, a negative relationship with their physician, were skeptical of decisions, and did not rely on their physician for assistance. This study provides valuable insights regarding patients' perceptions of the shared decision-making process in IBD treatment using a novel moment-to-moment hybrid technology approach. Patient perspectives in this study indicate an increased desire for shared decision making in determining an optimal IBD treatment plan.

Using Option Grids: steps toward shared decision-making for neonatal circumcision.

PubMed

Fay, Mary; Grande, Stuart W; Donnelly, Kyla; Elwyn, Glyn

2016-02-01

To assess the impact, acceptability and feasibility of a short encounter tool designed to enhance the process of shared decision-making and parental engagement. We analyzed video-recordings of clinical encounters, half undertaken before and half after a brief intervention that trained four clinicians how to use Option Grids, using an observer-based measure of shared decision-making. We also analyzed semi-structured interviews conducted with the clinicians four weeks after their exposure to the intervention. Observer OPTION(5) scores were higher at post-intervention, with a mean of 33.9 (SD=23.5) compared to a mean of 16.1 (SD=7.1) for pre-intervention, a significant difference of 17.8 (95% CI: 2.4, 33.2). Prior to using the intervention, clinicians used a consent document to frame circumcision as a default practice. Encounters with the Option Grid conferred agency to both parents and clinicians, and facilitated shared decision-making. Clinician reported recognizing the tool's positive effect on their communication process. Tools such as Option Grids have the potential to make it easier for clinicians to achieve shared decision-making. Encounter tools have the potential to change practice. More research is needed to test their feasibility in routine practice. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

A preliminary evaluation of trust and shared decision making among intensive care patients' family members.

PubMed

Epstein, Elizabeth G; Wolfe, Katherine

2016-11-01

The purpose of this study was to preliminarily evaluate ICU family members' trust and shared decision making using modified versions of the Wake Forest Trust Survey and the Shared Decision Making-9 Survey. Using a descriptive approach, the perceptions of family members of ICU patients (n=69) of trust and shared decision making were measured using the Wake Forest Trust Survey and the 9-item Shared Decision Making (SDM-9) Questionnaire. Both surveys were modified slightly to apply to family members of ICU patients and to include perceptions of nurses as well as physicians. Overall, family members reported high levels of trust and inclusion in decision making. Family members who lived with the patient had higher levels of trust than those who did not. Family members who reported strong agreement among other family about treatment decisions had higher levels of trust and higher SDM-9 scores than those who reported less family agreement. The modified surveys may be useful in evaluating family members' trust and shared decision making in ICU settings. Future studies should include development of a comprehensive patient-centered care framework that focuses on its central goal of maintaining provider-patient/family partnerships as an avenue toward effective shared decision making. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Factors influencing the surgical decision for the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis in a preference-based shared decision-making process.

PubMed

Kim, Ho-Joong; Park, Jae-Young; Kang, Kyoung-Tak; Chang, Bong-Soon; Lee, Choon-Ki; Yeom, Jin S

2015-02-01

In a preference-based shared decision-making system, several subjective and/or objective factors such as pain severity, degree of disability, and the radiological severity of canal stenosis may influence the final surgical decision for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, our understanding of the shared decision-making process and the significance of each factor remain primitive. In the present study, we aimed to investigate which factors influence the surgical decision for the treatment of LSS when using a preference-based, shared decision-making process. We included 555 patients, aged 45-80 years, who used a preference-based shared decision-making process and were treated conservatively or surgically for chronic leg and/or back pain caused by LSS from April 2012 to December 2012. Univariate and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association of surgical decision making with age, sex, body mass index, symptom duration, radiologic stenotic grade, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Short Form-36 (SF-36) subscales, and motor weakness. In univariate analysis, the following variables were associated with a higher odds of a surgical decision for LSS: male sex; the VAS score for leg pain; ODI; morphological stenotic grades B, C, and D; motor weakness; and the physical function, physical role, bodily pain, social function, and emotional role of the SF-36 subscales. Multivariate analysis revealed that male sex, ODI, morphological stenotic grades C and D, and motor weakness were significantly associated with a higher possibility of a surgical decision. Motor weakness, male sex, morphological stenotic grade, and the amount of disability are critical factors leading to a surgical decision for LSS when using a preference-based shared decision-making process.

A multimethod analysis of shared decision-making in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings including family caregivers.

PubMed

Washington, Karla T; Oliver, Debra Parker; Gage, L Ashley; Albright, David L; Demiris, George

2016-03-01

Much of the existing research on shared decision-making in hospice and palliative care focuses on the provider-patient dyad; little is known about shared decision-making that is inclusive of family members of patients with advanced disease. We sought to describe shared decision-making as it occurred in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings that included family caregivers as participants using video-conferencing technology. We conducted a multimethod study in which we used content and thematic analysis techniques to analyze video-recordings of hospice interdisciplinary team meetings (n = 100), individual interviews of family caregivers (n = 73) and hospice staff members (n = 78), and research field notes. Participants in the original studies from which data for this analysis were drawn were hospice family caregivers and staff members employed by one of five different community-based hospice agencies located in the Midwestern United States. Shared decision-making occurred infrequently in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings that included family caregivers. Barriers to shared decision-making included time constraints, communication skill deficits, unaddressed emotional needs, staff absences, and unclear role expectations. The hospice philosophy of care, current trends in healthcare delivery, the interdisciplinary nature of hospice teams, and the designation of a team leader/facilitator supported shared decision-making. The involvement of family caregivers in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings using video-conferencing technology creates a useful platform for shared decision-making; however, steps must be taken to transform family caregivers from meeting attendees to shared decision-makers. © The Author(s) 2015.

Patchy 'coherence': using normalization process theory to evaluate a multi-faceted shared decision making implementation program (MAGIC).

PubMed

Lloyd, Amy; Joseph-Williams, Natalie; Edwards, Adrian; Rix, Andrew; Elwyn, Glyn

2013-09-05

Implementing shared decision making into routine practice is proving difficult, despite considerable interest from policy-makers, and is far more complex than merely making decision support interventions available to patients. Few have reported successful implementation beyond research studies. MAking Good Decisions In Collaboration (MAGIC) is a multi-faceted implementation program, commissioned by The Health Foundation (UK), to examine how best to put shared decision making into routine practice. In this paper, we investigate healthcare professionals' perspectives on implementing shared decision making during the MAGIC program, to examine the work required to implement shared decision making and to inform future efforts. The MAGIC program approached implementation of shared decision making by initiating a range of interventions including: providing workshops; facilitating development of brief decision support tools (Option Grids); initiating a patient activation campaign ('Ask 3 Questions'); gathering feedback using Decision Quality Measures; providing clinical leads meetings, learning events, and feedback sessions; and obtaining executive board level support. At 9 and 15 months (May and November 2011), two rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals in three secondary care teams to explore views on the impact of these interventions. Interview data were coded by two reviewers using a framework derived from the Normalization Process Theory. A total of 54 interviews were completed with 31 healthcare professionals. Partial implementation of shared decision making could be explained using the four components of the Normalization Process Theory: 'coherence,' 'cognitive participation,' 'collective action,' and 'reflexive monitoring.' Shared decision making was integrated into routine practice when clinical teams shared coherent views of role and purpose ('coherence'). Shared decision making was facilitated when teams engaged in

[A model for shared decision-making with frail older patients: consensus reached using Delphi technique].

PubMed

van de Pol, M H J; Fluit, C R M G; Lagro, J; Lagro-Janssen, A L M; Olde Rikkert, M G M

2017-01-01

To develop a model for shared decision-making with frail older patients. Online Delphi forum. We used a three-round Delphi technique to reach consensus on the structure of a model for shared decision-making with older patients. The expert panel consisted of 16 patients (round 1), and 59 professionals (rounds 1-3). In round 1, the panel of experts was asked about important steps in the process of shared decision-making and the draft model was introduced. Rounds 2 and 3 were used to adapt the model and test it for 'importance' and 'feasibility'. Consensus for the dynamic shared decision-making model as a whole was achieved for both importance (91% panel agreement) and feasibility (76% panel agreement). Shared decision-making with older patients is a dynamic process. It requires a continuous supportive dialogue between health care professional and patient.

Perceptions of shared decision making and decision aids among rural primary care clinicians.

PubMed

King, Valerie J; Davis, Melinda M; Gorman, Paul N; Rugge, J Bruin; Fagnan, L J

2012-01-01

Shared decision making (SDM) and decision aids (DAs) increase patients' involvement in health care decisions and enhance satisfaction with their choices. Studies of SDM and DAs have primarily occurred in academic centers and large health systems, but most primary care is delivered in smaller practices, and over 20% of Americans live in rural areas, where poverty, disease prevalence, and limited access to care may increase the need for SDM and DAs. To explore perceptions and practices of rural primary care clinicians regarding SDM and DAs. Cross-sectional survey. Setting and Participants Primary care clinicians affiliated with the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network. Surveys were returned by 181 of 231 eligible participants (78%); 174 could be analyzed. Two-thirds of participants were physicians, 84% practiced family medicine, and 55% were male. Sixty-five percent of respondents were unfamiliar with the term shared decision making, but following definition, 97% reported that they found the approach useful for conditions with multiple treatment options. Over 90% of clinicians perceived helping patients make decisions regarding chronic pain and health behavior change as moderate/hard in difficulty. Although 69% of respondents preferred that patients play an equal role in making decisions, they estimate that this happens only 35% of the time. Time was reported as the largest barrier to engaging in SDM (63%). Respondents were receptive to using DAs to facilitate SDM in print- (95%) or web-based formats (72%), and topic preference varied by clinician specialty and decision difficulty. Rural clinicians recognized the value of SDM and were receptive to using DAs in multiple formats. Integration of DAs to facilitate SDM in routine patient care may require addressing practice operation and reimbursement.

Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care - systematic decision aid development and study protocol

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice. Objectives To systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework. Methods 1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice. 2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness. 3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity. 4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis. 5. Iterative

Roles, processes, and outcomes of interprofessional shared decision-making in a neonatal intensive care unit: A qualitative study.

PubMed

Dunn, Sandra I; Cragg, Betty; Graham, Ian D; Medves, Jennifer; Gaboury, Isabelle

2018-05-01

Shared decision-making provides an opportunity for the knowledge and skills of care providers to synergistically influence patient care. Little is known about interprofessional shared decision-making processes in critical care settings. The aim of this study was to explore interprofessional team members' perspectives about the nature of interprofessional shared decision-making in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and to determine if there are any differences in perspectives across professional groups. An exploratory qualitative approach was used consisting of semi-structured interviews with 22 members of an interprofessional team working in a tertiary care NICU in Canada. Participants identified four key roles involved in interprofessional shared decision-making: leader, clinical experts, parents, and synthesizer. Participants perceived that interprofessional shared decision-making happens through collaboration, sharing, and weighing the options, the evidence and the credibility of opinions put forward. The process of interprofessional shared decision-making leads to a well-informed decision and participants feeling valued. Findings from this study identified key concepts of interprofessional shared decision-making, increased awareness of differing professional perspectives about this process of shared decision-making, and clarified understanding of the different roles involved in the decision-making process in an NICU.

Enhancing Group Decision Making: An Exercise to Reduce Shared Information Bias

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Baker, Diane F.

2010-01-01

Research on shared information bias has shown that group members involved in a decision-making task tend to undervalue information that a single member shares with the group, especially when that information conflicts with their prior conclusions. The group activity in this article is intended to heighten awareness of this shared information bias…

Shared decision-making to improve attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder care.

PubMed

Brinkman, William B; Hartl Majcher, Jessica; Poling, Lauren M; Shi, Gaoyan; Zender, Mike; Sucharew, Heidi; Britto, Maria T; Epstein, Jeffery N

2013-10-01

To examine the effect of a shared decision-making intervention with parents of children newly diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Seven pediatricians participated in a pre/post open trial of decision aids for use before and during the office visit to discuss diagnosis and develop a treatment plan. Encounters pre- (n=21, control group) and post-intervention implementation (n=33, intervention group) were compared. We video-recorded encounters and surveyed parents. Compared to controls, intervention group parents were more involved in shared decision-making (31.2 vs. 43.8 on OPTION score, p<0.01), more knowledgeable (6.4 vs. 8.1 questions correct, p<0.01), and less conflicted about treatment options (16.2 vs. 10.7 on decisional conflict total score, p=0.06). Visit duration was unchanged (41.0 vs. 41.6min, p=0.75). There were no significant differences in the median number of follow-up visits (0 vs. 1 visits, p=0.08), or the proportion of children with medication titration (62% vs. 76%, p=0.28), or parent-completed behavior rating scale to assess treatment response (24% vs. 39%, p=0.36). Our intervention increased shared decision-making with parents. Parents were better informed about treatment options without increasing visit duration. Interventions are available to prepare parents for visits and enable physicians to elicit parent preferences and involvement in decision-making. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters.

PubMed

Karnieli-Miller, Orit; Eisikovits, Zvi

2009-07-01

The results of recent research have led to the increased advocacy of shared decision-making regarding medical treatment. Nonetheless, only a limited number of studies have focused on the process of decision-making in real-time encounters. The present paper aims to document and analyze this process. Specifically, we assess whether these decisions are the result of partnership or of persuasive tactics based on power and hierarchical relationships. We will describe and analyze different strategies used by pediatric gastroenterologists in breaking bad news encounters, as well as their consequences. The analysis is based on a multi-method, multi-participant phenomenological study on breaking bad news to adolescents and their families regarding a chronic illness. It included 17 units of analysis (actual encounters and 52 interviews with physicians, parents and adolescents). Data were collected from three hospitals in Northern Israel using observations and audiotapes of diagnosis disclosure encounters and audio-taped interviews with all participants. The analysis identified eight different presentation tactics used in actual encounters during which physicians made various use of language, syntax and different sources of power to persuade patients to agree with their preferred treatment choice. The tactics included various ways of presenting the illness, treatment and side effects; providing examples from other success or failure stories; sharing the decision only concerning technicalities; and using plurals and authority. The findings suggest that shared decision-making may be advocated as a philosophical tenet or a value, but it is not necessarily implemented in actual communication with patients. Rather, treatment decisions tend to be unilaterally made, and a variety of persuasive approaches are used to ensure agreement with the physician's recommendation. The discussion is focused on the complexity of sharing a decision, especially in the initial bad news encounter

Promoting Shared Decision Making through Descriptive Inquiry

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Seher, Rachel; Traugh, Cecelia; Cheng, Alan

2018-01-01

This article shows how City-As-School, a progressive public school in New York City, used descriptive inquiry to deepen shared decision making, which is a central value of the school and part of a democratic way of life. Descriptive inquiry is a democratic knowledge-making process that was developed at the Prospect School in North Bennington,…

Shared decision making after severe stroke-How can we improve patient and family involvement in treatment decisions?

PubMed

Visvanathan, Akila; Dennis, Martin; Mead, Gillian; Whiteley, William N; Lawton, Julia; Doubal, Fergus Neil

2017-12-01

People who are well may regard survival with disability as being worse than death. However, this is often not the case when those surviving with disability (e.g. stroke survivors) are asked the same question. Many routine treatments provided after an acute stroke (e.g. feeding via a tube) increase survival, but with disability. Therefore, clinicians need to support patients and families in making informed decisions about the use of these treatments, in a process termed shared decision making. This is challenging after acute stroke: there is prognostic uncertainty, patients are often too unwell to participate in decision making, and proxies may not know the patients' expressed wishes (i.e. values). Patients' values also change over time and in different situations. There is limited evidence on successful methods to facilitate this process. Changes targeted at components of shared decision making (e.g. decision aids to provide information and discussing patient values) increase patient satisfaction. How this influences decision making is unclear. Presumably, a "shared decision-making tool" that introduces effective changes at various stages in this process might be helpful after acute stroke. For example, by complementing professional judgement with predictions from prognostic models, clinicians could provide information that is more accurate. Decision aids that are personalized may be helpful. Further qualitative research can provide clinicians with a better understanding of patient values and factors influencing this at different time points after a stroke. The evaluation of this tool in its success to achieve outcomes consistent with patients' values may require more than one clinical trial.

Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother?

PubMed

Hoffmann, Tammy C; Légaré, France; Simmons, Magenta B; McNamara, Kevin; McCaffery, Kirsten; Trevena, Lyndal J; Hudson, Ben; Glasziou, Paul P; Del Mar, Christopher B

2014-07-07

Shared decision making enables a clinician and patient to participate jointly in making a health decision, having discussed the options and their benefits and harms, and having considered the patient's values, preferences and circumstances. It is not a single step to be added into a consultation, but a process that can be used to guide decisions about screening, investigations and treatments. The benefits of shared decision making include enabling evidence and patients' preferences to be incorporated into a consultation; improving patient knowledge, risk perception accuracy and patient-clinician communication; and reducing decisional conflict, feeling uninformed and inappropriate use of tests and treatments. Various approaches can be used to guide clinicians through the process. We elaborate on five simple questions that can be used: What will happen if the patient waits and watches? What are the test or treatment options? What are the benefits and harms of each option? How do the benefits and harms weigh up for the patient? Does the patient have enough information to make a choice? Although shared decision making can occur without tools, various types of decision support tools now exist to facilitate it. Misconceptions about shared decision making are hampering its implementation. We address the barriers, as perceived by clinicians. Despite numerous international initiatives to advance shared decision making, very little has occurred in Australia. Consequently, we are lagging behind many other countries and should act urgently.

Shared decision-making in the paediatric field: a literature review and concept analysis.

PubMed

Park, Eun Sook; Cho, In Young

2017-09-13

The concept of shared decision-making is poorly defined and often used interchangeably with related terms. The aim of this study was to delineate and clarify the concept of shared decision-making in the paediatric field. Rodgers and Knafl's evolutionary concept analysis was used to delineate and clarify the concept. Following a search of the CINAHL, PubMed and MEDLINE databases and online journals between 1995 and 2016, we included a total of 42 articles that referred to shared decision-making in the paediatric field. The attributes included active participation of the three: parents, children and health professionals; collaborative partnership; reaching a compromise; and common goal for child's health. Antecedents were existing several options with different possible outcomes; substantial decisional conflict; recognising child's health situations that decision-making is needed; and willingness to participate in decision-making. Finally, the consequences included decreased decisional conflict; mutual empowerment; improved child health status; and improved quality of paediatric health care. This study provides a theoretical understanding of the concept of shared decision-making in the paediatric field; furthermore, by integrating this concept into paediatric practice, it may help to reduce the gap between theory and practice. The analysis could also provide nursing researchers with insight into paediatric decision-making and establish a foundation to develop future interventions and situation-specific theory for promoting high-quality decision-making in the paediatric field. © 2017 Nordic College of Caring Science.

Working in partnership: the application of shared decision-making to health visitor practice.

PubMed

Astbury, Ruth; Shepherd, Ashley; Cheyne, Helen

2017-01-01

To explore the processes that support shared decision-making when health visitors and parents are creating plans to improve the well-being of babies and children. Worldwide, there is a focus on promoting children's well-being to enhance the population health. Within the United Kingdom, health visitors have a key responsibility for working in partnership with parents to support this agenda. Despite evidence that the application of 'shared decision-making' frameworks can increase patient participation, improve patient satisfaction and improve health outcomes, there is limited research linking shared decision-making with health visitor practice. A qualitative, descriptive study. The study was undertaken in two phases: in Phase 1, data were collected by audio recording two health visitor-parent decision-making conversations, in the absence of the researcher, where decisions around planning for a baby or child were being made as part of usual care, and then the participants' experiences were sought through individual questionnaires. In Phase 2, semistructured interviews were conducted with nine health visitors and nine parents in relation to their recent experiences of planning care. Evidence of supportive processes included having a shared understanding around the issue needing to be addressed; being able to identify interventions that were accessible for the family; engaging in decision-making through deep, meaningful conversations using sensitive and responsive approaches; and establishing positive relationships between health visitors and parents, significant others within the family and other professionals. Despite evidence of strong, trusting relationships between parents and health visitors, there were times when shared decision-making was unable to take place due to the absence of supportive processes. Health visitors are aware that planning interventions with parents can be complex. These findings indicate the value of using a shared decision-making framework

A Mobile Phone App to Support Young People in Making Shared Decisions in Therapy (Power Up): Study Protocol

PubMed Central

Martin, Kate; Webber, Helen; Craven, Michael P; Hollis, Chris; Deighton, Jessica; Law, Roslyn; Fonagy, Peter; Wolpert, Miranda

2017-01-01

Background Evidence suggests that young people want to be active participants in their care and involved in decisions about their treatment. However, there is a lack of digital shared decision-making tools available to support young people in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). Objective The primary aim of this paper is to present the protocol of a feasibility trial for Power Up, a mobile phone app to empower young people in CAMHS to make their voices heard and participate in decisions around their care. Methods In the development phase, 30 young people, parents, and clinicians will take part in interviews and focus groups to elicit opinions on an early version of the app. In the feasibility testing phase, 60 young people from across 7 to 10 London CAMHS sites will take part in a trial looking at the feasibility and acceptability of measuring the impact of Power Up on shared decision making. Results Data collection for the development phase ended in December 2016. Data collection for the feasibility testing phase will end in December 2017. Conclusions Findings will inform the planning of a cluster controlled trial and contribute to the development and implementation of a shared decision-making app to be integrated into CAMHS. Trial Registration ISRCTN77194423; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN77194423 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6td6MINP0). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02987608; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02987608 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6td6PNBZM) PMID:29084708

A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process

PubMed Central

Durand, Marie Anne; Song, Julia; Aarts, Johanna; Barr, Paul J; Berger, Zackary; Cochran, Nan; Frosch, Dominick; Galasiński, Dariusz; Gulbrandsen, Pål; Han, Paul K J; Härter, Martin; Kinnersley, Paul; Lloyd, Amy; Mishra, Manish; Perestelo-Perez, Lilisbeth; Scholl, Isabelle; Tomori, Kounosuke; Trevena, Lyndal; Witteman, Holly O; Van der Weijden, Trudy

2017-01-01

Objectives To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement. Design Multistage consultation process. Setting Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties. Participants 19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties. Results After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on “team talk,” “option talk,” and “decision talk,” to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals. Conclusions The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences. PMID:29109079

Interventions to support shared decision-making for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: A systematic review.

PubMed

Zandstra, D; Busser, J A S; Aarts, J W M; Nieboer, T E

2017-04-01

This review studies women's preferences for shared decision-making about heavy menstrual bleeding treatment and evaluates interventions that support shared decision-making and their effectiveness. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Medline and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. Three research questions were predefined: 1) What is the range of perspectives gathered in studies that examine women facing a decision related to heavy menstrual bleeding management?; 2) What types of interventions have been developed to support shared decision-making for women experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding?; and 3) In what way might women benefit from interventions that support shared decision-making? All original studies were included if the study population consisted of women experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding. We used the TIDieR (Template for Intervention: Description and Replication) checklist to assess the quality of description and the reproducibility of interventions. Interventions were categorized using Grande et al. guidelines and collated and summarized outcomes measures into three categories: 1) patient-reported outcomes; 2) observer-reported outcomes; and 3) doctor-reported outcomes. Fifteen studies were included. Overall, patients preferred to decide together with their doctor (74%). Women's previsit preference was the strongest predictor for treatment choice in two studies. Information packages did not have a statistically significant effect on treatment choice or satisfaction. However, adding a structured interview or decision aid to increase patient involvement did show a positive effect on treatment choice and results, patient satisfaction and shared decision-making related outcomes. In conclusion shared decision-making is becoming more important in the care of women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Structured interviews or well-designed (computerized) tools such as decision aids seem to facilitate this process, but there is room for improvement. A shared treatment choice

Implementing shared decision-making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities.

PubMed

Holmes-Rovner, Margaret; Valade, Diane; Orlowski, Catherine; Draus, Catherine; Nabozny-Valerio, Barbara; Keiser, Susan

2000-09-01

OBJECTIVE: Determine feasibility of shared decision-making programmes in fee-for-service hospital systems including physicians' offices and in-patient facilities. DESIGN: Survey and participant observation. Data obtained during Phase 1 of a patient outcome study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Three hospitals in Michigan: one 299-bed rural regional hospital, one 650-bed urban community hospital, one 459-bed urban and suburban teaching hospital. All nurses and physicians who agreed to use the programmes participated in the evaluation (n = 34). INTERVENTION: Two shared decision-making(R) (SDP) multimedia programmes: surgical treatment choice for breast cancer and ischaemic heart disease treatment choice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) clinicians' evaluations of programme quality; (2) challenges in hospital settings; and (3) patient referral rates. RESULTS: SDP programmes were judged to be clear, accurate and about the right length and amount of information. Programmes were judged to be informative and appropriate for patients to see before making a decision. Clinicians were neutral about patients' desire to participate in treatment decision-making. Referral volume to SDPs was lower than expected: 24 patients in 7 months across three hospitals. Implementation challenges centred on time pressures in patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Productivity and time pressure in US health care severely constrain shared decision-making programme implementation. Physician referral may not be a reliable mechanism for patient access. Possible innovations include: (1) incorporation into the informed consent process; (2) provider or payer negotiated requirement in the routine hospital procedure to use the SDP as a quality indicator; and (3) payer reimbursement to professional providers who make SDP programmes available to patients.

The desire for shared decision making among patients with solid and hematological cancer.

PubMed

Ernst, Jochen; Kuhnt, Susanne; Schwarzer, Andreas; Aldaoud, Ali; Niederwieser, Dietger; Mantovani-Löffler, Luisa; Kuchenbecker, Doris; Schröder, Christina

2011-02-01

The desire for shared decision making arises especially for frequently occurring cases of solid cancer. For hematological cancer conditions, there are no analogous results. This study compares the participation patients' desires concerning medical decisions dealing with their solid and hematological tumors. The 533 inpatients with solid cancer (age<65: 61.0%; female: 39.6 %) and 177 patients with hematological cancer (inpatient: 62.1%, outpatient: 37.9%; age<65: 63.3%; female: 42.4%) were given a questionnaire after admission to a hospital or medical practice. The dependent variable was patient preference for control in decision making for eight different medical areas of decision. Descriptive results showed that patients with solid cancer had a stronger desire to participate in the decisions in six of a total of eight survey fields (p<0.01). When considering medical and socio-demographic control variables, the multivariate regression shows that the differences between the patient groups remain in all areas (p<0.01). Further predictor variables are educational background and age (p<0.05). No influence resulted from the factors of gender, medical or treatment characteristics. The results show differences between patients with hematological cancer and patients with solid tumors, and these differences concern the preference to participate in medical decisions. Hemato-oncological patients desire less active participation and prefer a more dominant role of the physician in the various areas requiring decisions. Physicians should respect this in the course of the treatment. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[Shared decision making in patients with diabetes mellitus].

PubMed

Serrano, Valentina; Larrea-Mantilla, Laura; Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, René; Spencer-Bonilla, Gabriela; Málaga, Germán; Hargraves, Ian; Montori, Víctor M

2017-05-01

Patients with diabetes mellitus often have several medical problems and carry a burden imposed by their illness and treatment. Health care often ignores the values, preferences and context of patients, leading to treatments that do not fit into patients’ overwhelmed lives. Shared Decision Making (SDM) emerges as a way to answer the question: “What’s best for the patient?”. SDM promotes an empathic conversation between patients and clinicians that integrates the best evidence available with their values, preferences and context. We discuss three SDM approaches for patients with diabetes: one focused on sharing information, another on making choices, and a third one on helping patients and clinicians to talk about how to address the problems of living with diabetes and its comorbidities. Despite the benefits demonstrated in studies conducted in the U.S. and Europe, the implementation of SDM continues to be a challenge. In Latin America, healthcare and socio-economic conditions render the implementation of SDM more challenging. Research aimed to respond to this challenge is necessary. Meanwhile, clinicians can practice SDM by sharing evidence-based information, giving voice to patients’ values and preferences in making choices, and creating empathic conversations aimed at decisions aligned with patients’ context, dreams, goals, and life expectations.

Savings sharing: rewarding staff for responsible decision-making.

PubMed

Jones, Debi

2005-04-01

Shortages of professional nurses create a "buyer's market" in which nurses accept temporary assignments for the highest rates and offer little additional time to the primary employer. Use of temporary personnel use salary dollars at an inordinate rate while offering little continuity or support for the organization's standards. Methods for placing decision-making in the hands of the nurses are needed along with a reward system for establishing a pattern of sound decision-making. The author describes a savings sharing program that is gaining credibility in one organization for addressing both objectives.

How can clinical practice guidelines be adapted to facilitate shared decision making? A qualitative key-informant study.

PubMed

van der Weijden, Trudy; Pieterse, Arwen H; Koelewijn-van Loon, Marije S; Knaapen, Loes; Légaré, France; Boivin, Antoine; Burgers, Jako S; Stiggelbout, Anne M; Faber, Marjan; Elwyn, Glyn

2013-10-01

To explore how clinical practice guidelines can be adapted to facilitate shared decision making. This was a qualitative key-informant study with group discussions and semi-structured interviews. First, 75 experts in guideline development or shared decision making participated in group discussions at two international conferences. Next, health professionals known as experts in depression or breast cancer, experts on clinical practice guidelines and/or shared decision making, and patient representatives were interviewed (N=20). Using illustrative treatment decisions on depression or breast cancer, we asked the interviewees to indicate as specifically as they could how guidelines could be used to facilitate shared decision making. Interviewees suggested some generic strategies, namely to include a separate chapter on the importance of shared decision making, to use language that encourages patient involvement, and to develop patient versions of guidelines. Recommendation-specific strategies, related to specific decision points in the guideline, were also suggested: These include structuring the presentation of healthcare options to increase professionals' option awareness; structuring the deliberation process between professionals and patients; and providing relevant patient support tools embedded at important decision points in the guideline. This study resulted in an overview of strategies to adapt clinical practice guidelines to facilitate shared decision making. Some strategies seemed more contentious than others. Future research should assess the feasibility and impact of these strategies to make clinical practice guidelines more conducive to facilitate shared decision making.

Supporting shared decision making beyond consumer-prescriber interactions: Initial development of the CommonGround fidelity scale

PubMed Central

Fukui, Sadaaki; Salyers, Michelle P.; Rapp, Charlie; Goscha, Rick; Young, Leslie; Mabry, Ally

2015-01-01

Shared decision-making has become a central tenet of recovery-oriented, person-centered mental health care, yet the practice is not always transferred to the routine psychiatric visit. Supporting the practice at the system level, beyond the interactions of consumers and medication prescribers, is needed for successful adoption of shared decision-making. CommonGround is a systemic approach, intended to be part of a larger integration of shared decision-making tools and practices at the system level. We discuss the organizational components that CommonGround uses to facilitate shared decision-making, and we present a fidelity scale to assess how well the system is being implemented. PMID:28090194

Shared decision-making in home-care from the nurse's perspective: sitting at the kitchen table--a qualitative descriptive study.

PubMed

Truglio-Londrigan, Marie

2013-10-01

To come to know, understand and describe the experience of shared decision-making in home-care from the nurse's perspective. The literature presents the concept of shared decision-making as a complex process characterised by a partnership between the healthcare provider and the patient, which is participatory and action oriented with education and negotiation leading to agreement. Few studies have been carried out to explore and describe the events that make up the experiences of shared decision-making in home-care from the nurse's perspective. A qualitative descriptive study was implemented. Semi structured interviews were performed with 10 home-care nurses who were asked to reflect on a time in their practice when they were involved in a shared decision-making process with their patient. All data were analysed using Colaizzi's method. The following Themes were uncovered: Begin where the patient is; Education for shared decision-making; The village and shared decision-making; and Whose decision is it? Each of the four Themes contained Subthemes. The findings of this study present shared decision-making as a complex, multidimensional and fluid process. A thorough understanding of shared decision-making is essential within the multiple contexts in which care is delivered. Nurses in clinical practice need to know and understand the events of the experience of shared decision-making. A more comprehensive understanding of these facts can assist home-care nurses in their practice with regard to the application of shared decision-making. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision-making in Early Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: a Qualitative Study.

PubMed

Wiener, Renda Soylemez; Koppelman, Elisa; Bolton, Rendelle; Lasser, Karen E; Borrelli, Belinda; Au, David H; Slatore, Christopher G; Clark, Jack A; Kathuria, Hasmeena

2018-02-21

Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient

Choosing to Decline: Finding Common Ground through the Perspective of Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Megregian, Michele; Nieuwenhuijze, Marianne

2018-05-18

Respectful communication is a key component of any clinical relationship. Shared decision making is the process of collaboration that occurs between a health care provider and patient in order to make health care decisions based upon the best available evidence and the individual's preferences. A midwife and woman (and her support persons) engage together to make health care decisions, using respectful communication that is based upon the best available evidence and the woman's preferences, values, and goals. Supporting a woman's autonomy, however, can be particularly challenging in maternity care when recommended treatments or interventions are declined. In the past, the real or perceived increased risk to a woman's health or that of her fetus as a result of that choice has occasionally resulted in coercion. Through the process of shared decision making, the woman's autonomy may be supported, including the choice to decline interventions. The case presented here demonstrates how a shared decision-making framework can support the health care provider-patient relationship in the context of informed refusal. © 2018 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.

Shared decision-making in medical encounters regarding breast cancer treatment: the contribution of methodological triangulation.

PubMed

Durif-Bruckert, C; Roux, P; Morelle, M; Mignotte, H; Faure, C; Moumjid-Ferdjaoui, N

2015-07-01

The aim of this study on shared decision-making in the doctor-patient encounter about surgical treatment for early-stage breast cancer, conducted in a regional cancer centre in France, was to further the understanding of patient perceptions on shared decision-making. The study used methodological triangulation to collect data (both quantitative and qualitative) about patient preferences in the context of a clinical consultation in which surgeons followed a shared decision-making protocol. Data were analysed from a multi-disciplinary research perspective (social psychology and health economics). The triangulated data collection methods were questionnaires (n = 132), longitudinal interviews (n = 47) and observations of consultations (n = 26). Methodological triangulation revealed levels of divergence and complementarity between qualitative and quantitative results that suggest new perspectives on the three inter-related notions of decision-making, participation and information. Patients' responses revealed important differences between shared decision-making and participation per se. The authors note that subjecting patients to a normative behavioural model of shared decision-making in an era when paradigms of medical authority are shifting may undermine the patient's quest for what he or she believes is a more important right: a guarantee of the best care available. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process.

PubMed

Elwyn, Glyn; Durand, Marie Anne; Song, Julia; Aarts, Johanna; Barr, Paul J; Berger, Zackary; Cochran, Nan; Frosch, Dominick; Galasiński, Dariusz; Gulbrandsen, Pål; Han, Paul K J; Härter, Martin; Kinnersley, Paul; Lloyd, Amy; Mishra, Manish; Perestelo-Perez, Lilisbeth; Scholl, Isabelle; Tomori, Kounosuke; Trevena, Lyndal; Witteman, Holly O; Van der Weijden, Trudy

2017-11-06

Objectives  To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement. Design  Multistage consultation process. Setting  Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties. Participants  19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties. Results  After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on "team talk," "option talk," and "decision talk," to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals. Conclusions  The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Tools to Promote Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: A Systematic Review.

PubMed

Austin, C Adrian; Mohottige, Dinushika; Sudore, Rebecca L; Smith, Alexander K; Hanson, Laura C

2015-07-01

Serious illness impairs function and threatens survival. Patients facing serious illness value shared decision making, yet few decision aids address the needs of this population. To perform a systematic review of evidence about decision aids and other exportable tools that promote shared decision making in serious illness, thereby (1) identifying tools relevant to the treatment decisions of seriously ill patients and their caregivers, (2) evaluating the quality of evidence for these tools, and (3) summarizing their effect on outcomes and accessibility for clinicians. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and PsychInfo from January 1, 1995, through October 31, 2014, and identified additional studies from reference lists and other systematic reviews. Clinical trials with random or nonrandom controls were included if they tested print, video, or web-based tools for advance care planning (ACP) or decision aids for serious illness. We extracted data on the study population, design, results, and risk for bias using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Each tool was evaluated for its effect on patient outcomes and accessibility. Seventeen randomized clinical trials tested decision tools in serious illness. Nearly all the trials were of moderate or high quality and showed that decision tools improve patient knowledge and awareness of treatment choices. The available tools address ACP, palliative care and goals of care communication, feeding options in dementia, lung transplant in cystic fibrosis, and truth telling in terminal cancer. Five randomized clinical trials provided further evidence that decision tools improve ACP documentation, clinical decisions, and treatment received. Clinicians can access and use evidence-based tools to engage seriously ill patients in shared decision making. This field of research is in an early stage; future research is needed to develop novel decision aids for other serious diagnoses and key

[Evidence-based Risk and Benefit Communication for Shared Decision Making].

PubMed

Nakayama, Takeo

2018-01-01

　Evidence-based medicine (EBM) can be defined as "the integration of the best research evidence with clinical expertise and a patient's unique values and circumstances". However, even with the best research evidence, many uncertainties can make clinical decisions difficult. As the social requirement of respecting patient values and preferences has been increasingly recognized, shared decision making (SDM) and consensus development between patients and clinicians have attracted attention. SDM is a process by which patients and clinicians make decisions and arrive at a consensus through interactive conversations and communications. During the process of SDM, patients and clinicians share information with each other on the goals they hope to achieve and responsibilities in meeting those goals. From the clinician's standpoint, information regarding the benefits and risks of potential treatment options based on current evidence and professional experience is provided to patients. From the patient's standpoint, information on personal values, preferences, and social roles is provided to clinicians. SDM is a sort of "wisdom" in the context of making autonomous decisions in uncertain, difficult situations through interactions and cooperation between patients and clinicians. Joint development of EBM and SDM will help facilitate patient-clinician relationships and improve the quality of healthcare.

Measuring (shared) decision-making--a review of psychometric instruments.

PubMed

Simon, Daniela; Loh, Andreas; Härter, Martin

2007-01-01

In recent years shared decision-making (SDM) has gained importance as an appropriate approach to patient-physician communication and decision-making. However, there is a conceptual variety that implies problems of inconsistent measurement, of defining relationships of SDM and outcome measures, and of comparisons across different studies. This article presents the results of a literature search of psychometric instruments measuring aspects of decision-making. Altogether 18 scales were found. The majority covers the patients' perspective and relates to preferences for information and participation, decisional conflict, self-efficacy as well as to the evaluation of decision-making process and outcomes. The scales differ widely in their extent of validation. Although this review is not exhaustive, it presents a variety of available decision-making instruments. Yet, many of them still need to show their psychometric quality for other settings in further studies.

Consumer satisfaction with psychiatric services: The role of shared decision making and the therapeutic relationship.

PubMed

Klingaman, Elizabeth A; Medoff, Deborah R; Park, Stephanie G; Brown, Clayton H; Fang, Lijuan; Dixon, Lisa B; Hack, Samantha M; Tapscott, Stephanie L; Walsh, Mary Brighid; Kreyenbuhl, Julie A

2015-09-01

Although dissatisfaction is a primary reason for disengagement from outpatient psychiatric care among consumers with serious mental illnesses, little is known about predictors of their satisfaction with medication management visits. The primary purpose of this study was to explore how dimensions of consumer preferences for shared decision making (i.e., preferences for obtaining knowledge about one's mental illness, being offered and asked one's opinion about treatment options, and involvement in treatment decisions) and the therapeutic relationship (i.e., positive collaboration and type of clinician input) were related to visit satisfaction. Participants were 228 Veterans with serious mental illnesses who completed a 19-item self-report questionnaire assessing satisfaction with visits to prescribers (524 assessments) immediately after visits. In this correlational design, a 3-level mixed model with the restricted maximum likelihood estimation procedure was used to examine shared decision-making preferences and therapeutic alliance as predictors of visit satisfaction. Preferences for involvement in treatment decisions was the unique component of shared decision making associated with satisfaction, such that the more consumers desired involvement, the less satisfied they were. Positive collaboration and prescriber input were associated with greater visit satisfaction. When consumers with serious mental illnesses express preferences to be involved in shared decision making, it may not be sufficient to only provide information and treatment options; prescribers should attend to consumers' interest in involvement in actual treatment decisions. Assessment and tailoring of treatment approaches to consumer preferences for shared decision making should occur within the context of a strong therapeutic relationship. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Hidden profiles and concealed information: strategic information sharing and use in group decision making.

PubMed

Toma, Claudia; Butera, Fabrizio

2009-06-01

Two experiments investigated the differential impact of cooperation and competition on strategic information sharing and use in a three-person group decision-making task. Information was distributed in order to create a hidden profile so that disconfirmation of group members' initial preferences was required to solve the task. Experiment 1 revealed that competition, compared to cooperation, led group members to withhold unshared information, a difference that was not significant for shared information. In competition, compared to cooperation, group members were also more reluctant to disconfirm their initial preferences. Decision quality was lower in competition than in cooperation, this effect being mediated by disconfirmation use and not by information sharing. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and revealed the role of mistrust in predicting strategic information sharing and use in competition. These results support a motivated information processing approach of group decision making.

Shared Decision Making: The Need For Patient-Clinician Conversation, Not Just Information.

PubMed

Hargraves, Ian; LeBlanc, Annie; Shah, Nilay D; Montori, Victor M

2016-04-01

The growth of shared decision making has been driven largely by the understanding that patients need information and choices regarding their health care. But while these are important elements for patients who make decisions in partnership with their clinicians, our experience suggests that they are not enough to address the larger issue: the need for the patient and clinician to jointly create a course of action that is best for the individual patient and his or her family. The larger need in evidence-informed shared decision making is for a patient-clinician interaction that offers conversation, not just information, and care, not just choice. Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.

College students, shared decision making, and the appropriate use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections: A systematic literature review.

PubMed

Blyer, Kristina; Hulton, Linda

2016-01-01

This systematic review examines shared decision making to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics for college students with respiratory tract infections. CINAL, Cochrane, PubMed, EBSCO, and PsycNET were searched in October 2014 using the following criteria: English language, human subjects, peer-reviewed, shared decision making for respiratory tract infections, adult patients or college students, and antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections. Twelve articles were selected for final review. College students and younger, more educated, adults prefer shared decision making. Shared decision making shows promise for decreasing antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections. Education, understanding, and provider-patient communication are important to the shared decision-making process. Shared decision making shows promise to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections in college students and could be considered for future studies.

Do Upper Extremity Trauma Patients Have Different Preferences for Shared Decision-making Than Patients With Nontraumatic Conditions?

PubMed

Hageman, Michiel G J S; Reddy, Rajesh; Makarawung, Dennis J S; Briet, Jan Paul; van Dijk, C Niek; Ring, David

2015-11-01

Shared decision-making is a combination of expertise, available scientific evidence, and the preferences of the patient and surgeon. Some surgeons contend that patients are less capable of participating in decisions about traumatic conditions than nontraumatic conditions. (1) Do patients with nontraumatic conditions have different preferences for shared decision-making when compared with those who sustained acute trauma? (2) Do disability, symptoms of depression, and self-efficacy correlate with preference for shared decision-making? In this prospective, comparative trial, we evaluated a total of 133 patients presenting to the outpatient practices of two university-based hand surgeons with traumatic or nontraumatic hand and upper extremity illnesses or conditions. Each patient completed questionnaires measuring their preferred role in healthcare decision-making (Control Preferences Scale [CPS]), symptoms of depression (Patients' Health Questionnaire), and pain self-efficacy (confidence that one can achieve one's goals despite pain; measured using the Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire). Patients also completed a short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire and an ordinal rating of pain intensity. There was no difference in decision-making preferences between patients with traumatic (CPS: 3 ± 2) and nontraumatic conditions (CPS: 3 ± 1 mean difference = 0.2 [95% confidence interval, -0.4 to 0.7], p = 0.78) with most patients (95 versus 38) preferring shared decision-making. More educated patients preferred a more active role in decision-making (beta = -0.1, r = 0.08, p = 0.001); however, differences in levels of disability, pain and function, depression, and pain-related self-efficacy were not associated with differences in patients' preferences in terms of shared decision-making. Patients who sustained trauma have on average the same preference for shared decision-making compared with patients who sustained no trauma. Now that we

The Choice Project: Peer Workers Promoting Shared Decision Making at a Youth Mental Health Service.

PubMed

Simmons, Magenta Bender; Batchelor, Samantha; Dimopoulos-Bick, Tara; Howe, Deb

2017-08-01

In youth mental health services, consumer participation is essential, but few implementation strategies exist to engage young consumers. This project evaluated an intervention implemented in an Australian youth mental health service that utilized peer workers to promote shared decision making via an online tool. All new clients ages 16-25 were invited to participate in this nonrandomized comparative study, which used a historical comparison group (N=80). Intervention participants (N=149) engaged with a peer worker and used the online tool before and during their intake assessment. Pre- and postintake data were collected for both groups; measures included decisional conflict, perceived shared decision making, and satisfaction. A series of paired t tests, analyses of variance, and multiple regressions were conducted to assess differences in scores across intervention and comparison groups and pre- and postintake assessments. Ratings of perceived shared decision making with intake workers were higher in the intervention group than in the comparison group (p=.015). In both groups, decisional conflict scores were significantly lower after the intake assessment (p<.001 for both groups). Both perceived shared decision making and lower decisional conflict were associated with satisfaction (p<.015). Young people who participated in an intervention that combined peer work and shared decision making reported feeling more involved in their assessment. Feeling involved and having lower decisional conflict after seeing an intake worker were important for client satisfaction. These findings demonstrate the importance of both peer work and shared decision making for promoting optimal outcomes in youth mental health services.

Development of a Model of Interprofessional Shared Clinical Decision Making in the ICU: A Mixed-Methods Study.

PubMed

DeKeyser Ganz, Freda; Engelberg, Ruth; Torres, Nicole; Curtis, Jared Randall

2016-04-01

To develop a model to describe ICU interprofessional shared clinical decision making and the factors associated with its implementation. Ethnographic (observations and interviews) and survey designs. Three ICUs (two in Israel and one in the United States). A convenience sample of nurses and physicians. None. Observations and interviews were analyzed using ethnographic and grounded theory methodologies. Questionnaires included a demographic information sheet and the Jefferson Scale of Attitudes toward Physician-Nurse Collaboration. From observations and interviews, we developed a conceptual model of the process of shared clinical decision making that involves four stepped levels, proceeding from the lowest to the highest levels of collaboration: individual decision, information exchange, deliberation, and shared decision. This process is influenced by individual, dyadic, and system factors. Most decisions were made at the lower two levels. Levels of perceived collaboration were moderate with no statistically significant differences between physicians and nurses or between units. Both qualitative and quantitative data corroborated that physicians and nurses from all units were similarly and moderately satisfied with their level of collaboration and shared decision making. However, most ICU clinical decision making continues to take place independently, where there is some sharing of information but rarely are decisions made collectively. System factors, such as interdisciplinary rounds and unit culture, seem to have a strong impact on this process. This study provides a model for further study and improvement of interprofessional shared decision making.

Shared Decision Making in ICUs: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.

PubMed

Kon, Alexander A; Davidson, Judy E; Morrison, Wynne; Danis, Marion; White, Douglas B

2016-01-01

Shared decision making is endorsed by critical care organizations; however, there remains confusion about what shared decision making is, when it should be used, and approaches to promote partnerships in treatment decisions. The purpose of this statement is to define shared decision making, recommend when shared decision making should be used, identify the range of ethically acceptable decision-making models, and present important communication skills. The American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Ethics Committees reviewed empirical research and normative analyses published in peer-reviewed journals to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Ethics Committees of American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society were included in the statement. Six recommendations were endorsed: 1) DEFINITION: Shared decision making is a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make healthcare decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values, goals, and preferences. 2) Clinicians should engage in a shared decision making process to define overall goals of care (including decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing life-prolonging interventions) and when making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences. 3) Clinicians should use as their "default" approach a shared decision making process that includes three main elements: information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision. 4) A wide range of decision-making approaches are ethically supportable, including patient- or surrogate-directed and clinician-directed models. Clinicians should tailor the decision-making process based on the preferences of the patient or surrogate. 5) Clinicians should be trained in communication skills. 6) Research is needed to evaluate decision

Shared decision making as part of value based care: New U.S. policies challenge our readiness.

PubMed

Spatz, Erica S; Elwyn, Glyn; Moulton, Benjamin W; Volk, Robert J; Frosch, Dominick L

2017-06-01

Shared decision making in the United States is increasingly being recognized as part of value-based care. During the last decade, several state and federal initiatives have linked shared decision making with reimbursement and increased protection from litigation. Additionally, private and public foundations are increasingly funding studies to identify best practices for moving shared decision making from the research world into clinical practice. These shifts offer opportunities and challenges for ensuring effective implementation. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Development of a Shared Decision Making coding system for analysis of patient-healthcare provider encounters

PubMed Central

Clayman, Marla L.; Makoul, Gregory; Harper, Maya M.; Koby, Danielle G.; Williams, Adam R.

2012-01-01

Objectives Describe the development and refinement of a scheme, Detail of Essential Elements and Participants in Shared Decision Making (DEEP-SDM), for coding Shared Decision Making (SDM) while reporting on the characteristics of decisions in a sample of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Methods The Evidence-Based Patient Choice instrument was modified to reflect Makoul and Clayman’s Integrative Model of SDM. Coding was conducted on video recordings of 20 women at the first visit with their medical oncologists after suspicion of disease progression. Noldus Observer XT v.8, a video coding software platform, was used for coding. Results The sample contained 80 decisions (range: 1-11), divided into 150 decision making segments. Most decisions were physician-led, although patients and physicians initiated similar numbers of decision-making conversations. Conclusion DEEP-SDM facilitates content analysis of encounters between women with metastatic breast cancer and their medical oncologists. Despite the fractured nature of decision making, it is possible to identify decision points and to code each of the Essential Elements of Shared Decision Making. Further work should include application of DEEP-SDM to non-cancer encounters. Practice Implications: A better understanding of how decisions unfold in the medical encounter can help inform the relationship of SDM to patient-reported outcomes. PMID:22784391

Consumer Satisfaction with Psychiatric Services: The Role of Shared Decision-Making and the Therapeutic Relationship

PubMed Central

Klingaman, Elizabeth A.; Medoff, Deborah R.; Park, Stephanie G.; Brown, Clayton H.; Fang, Lijuan; Dixon, Lisa B.; Hack, Samantha M.; Tapscott, Stephanie L.; Walsh, Mary Brighid; Kreyenbuhl, Julie A.

2017-01-01

Objective Although dissatisfaction is a primary reason for disengagement from outpatient psychiatric care among consumers with serious mental illnesses, little is known about predictors of their satisfaction with medication management visits. The primary purpose of the present study was to explore how dimensions of consumer preferences for shared decision-making (i.e., preferences for obtaining knowledge about one’s mental illness, being offered and asked one’s opinion about treatment options, and involvement in treatment decisions) and the therapeutic relationship (i.e., positive collaboration and type of clinician input) were related to visit satisfaction. Methods Participants were 228 Veterans with serious mental illnesses who completed a 19-item self-report questionnaire assessing satisfaction with visits to prescribers (n=524 assessments) immediately after visits. In this correlational design, a 3-level mixed model with the restricted maximum likelihood estimation procedure was used to examine shared decision-making preferences and therapeutic alliance as predictors of visit satisfaction. Results Preferences for involvement in treatment decisions was the unique component of shared decision-making associated with satisfaction, such that the more consumers desired involvement, the less satisfied they were. Positive collaboration and prescriber input were associated with greater visit satisfaction. Conclusions and Implications for Practice When consumers with serious mental illnesses express preferences to be involved in shared decision-making, it may not be sufficient to only provide information and treatment options; prescribers should attend to consumers’ interest in involvement in actual treatment decisions. Assessment and tailoring of treatment approaches to consumer preferences for shared decision-making should occur within the context of a strong therapeutic relationship. PMID:25664755

Shared and Disorder-Specific Neurocomputational Mechanisms of Decision-Making in Autism Spectrum Disorder and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

PubMed

Carlisi, Christina O; Norman, Luke; Murphy, Clodagh M; Christakou, Anastasia; Chantiluke, Kaylita; Giampietro, Vincent; Simmons, Andrew; Brammer, Michael; Murphy, Declan G; Mataix-Cols, David; Rubia, Katya

2017-12-01

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) often share phenotypes of repetitive behaviors, possibly underpinned by abnormal decision-making. To compare neural correlates underlying decision-making between these disorders, brain activation of boys with ASD (N = 24), OCD (N = 20) and typically developing controls (N = 20) during gambling was compared, and computational modeling compared performance. Patients were unimpaired on number of risky decisions, but modeling showed that both patient groups had lower choice consistency and relied less on reinforcement learning compared to controls. ASD individuals had disorder-specific choice perseverance abnormalities compared to OCD individuals. Neurofunctionally, ASD and OCD boys shared dorsolateral/inferior frontal underactivation compared to controls during decision-making. During outcome anticipation, patients shared underactivation compared to controls in lateral inferior/orbitofrontal cortex and ventral striatum. During reward receipt, ASD boys had disorder-specific enhanced activation in inferior frontal/insular regions relative to OCD boys and controls. Results showed that ASD and OCD individuals shared decision-making strategies that differed from controls to achieve comparable performance to controls. Patients showed shared abnormalities in lateral-(orbito)fronto-striatal reward circuitry, but ASD boys had disorder-specific lateral inferior frontal/insular overactivation, suggesting that shared and disorder-specific mechanisms underpin decision-making in these disorders. Findings provide evidence for shared neurobiological substrates that could serve as possible future biomarkers. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press.

Shared Decision-Making for Cancer Care Among Racial and Ethnic Minorities: A Systematic Review

PubMed Central

Mead, Erin L.; Doorenbos, Ardith Z.; Javid, Sara H.; Haozous, Emily A.; Alvord, Lori Arviso; Flum, David R.

2013-01-01

To assess decision-making for cancer treatment among racial/ethnic minority patients, we systematically reviewed and synthesized evidence from studies of “shared decision-making,” “cancer,” and “minority groups,” using PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and EMBASE. We identified significant themes that we compared across studies, refined, and organized into a conceptual model. Five major themes emerged: treatment decision-making, patient factors, family and important others, community, and provider factors. Thematic data overlapped categories, indicating that individuals’ preferences for medical decision-making cannot be authentically examined outside the context of family and community. The shared decision-making model should be expanded beyond the traditional patient–physician dyad to include other important stakeholders in the cancer treatment decision process, such as family or community leaders. PMID:24134353

Shared decision making in the United States: policy and implementation activity on multiple fronts.

PubMed

Frosch, Dominick L; Moulton, Benjamin W; Wexler, Richard M; Holmes-Rovner, Margaret; Volk, Robert J; Levin, Carrie A

2011-01-01

Shared decision making in the United States has become an important element in health policy debates. The recently passed federal health care reform legislation includes several key provisions related to shared decision making (SDM) and patient decision support. Several states have passed or are considering legislation that incorporates SDM as a key component of improved health care provision. Research on SDM is funded by a range of public and private organizations. Non-profit, for-profit, academic and government organizations are developing decision support interventions for numerous conditions. Some interventions are publicly available; others are distributed to patients through health insurance and healthcare providers. A significant number of clinical implementation projects are underway to test and evaluate different ways of incorporating SDM and patient decision support into routine clinical care. Numerous professional organizations are advocating for SDM and social networking efforts are increasing their advocacy as well. Policy makers are intrigued by the potential of SDM to improve health care provision and potentially lower costs. The role of shared decision making in policy and practice will be part of the larger health care reform debate. 2011. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Shared decision making and use of decision AIDS for localized prostate cancer : perceptions from radiation oncologists and urologists.

PubMed

Wang, Elyn H; Gross, Cary P; Tilburt, Jon C; Yu, James B; Nguyen, Paul L; Smaldone, Marc C; Shah, Nilay D; Abouassally, Robert; Sun, Maxine; Kim, Simon P

2015-05-01

The current attitudes of prostate cancer specialists toward decision aids and their use in clinical practice to facilitate shared decision making are poorly understood. To assess attitudes toward decision aids and their dissemination in clinical practice. A survey was mailed to a national random sample of 1422 specialists (711 radiation oncologists and 711 urologists) in the United States from November 1, 2011, through April 30, 2012. Respondents were asked about familiarity, perceptions, and use of decision aids for clinically localized prostate cancer and trust in various professional societies in developing decision aids. The Pearson χ2 test was used to test for bivariate associations between physician characteristics and outcomes. Similar response rates were observed for radiation oncologists and urologists (44.0% vs 46.1%; P=.46). Although most respondents had some familiarity with decision aids, only 35.5% currently use a decision aid in clinic practice. The most commonly cited barriers to decision aid use included the perception that their ability to estimate the risk of recurrence was superior to that of decision aids (7.7% in those not using decision aids and 26.2% in those using decision aids; P<.001) and the concern that patients could not process information from a decision aid (7.6% in those not using decision aids and 23.7% in those using decision aids; P<.001). In assessing trust in decision aids established by various professional medical societies, specialists consistently reported trust in favor of their respective organizations, with 9.2% being very confident and 59.2% being moderately confident (P=.01). Use of decision aids among specialists treating patients with prostate cancer is relatively low. Efforts to address barriers to clinical implementation of decision aids may facilitate greater shared decision making for patients diagnosed as having prostate cancer.

The state of shared decision making in Malaysia.

PubMed

Lee, Yew Kong; Ng, Chirk Jenn

2017-06-01

Shared decision making (SDM) activities in Malaysia began around 2010. Although the concept is not widespread, there are opportunities to implement SDM in both the public and private healthcare sectors. Malaysia has a multicultural society and cultural components (such as language differences, medical paternalism, strong family involvement, religious beliefs and complementary medicine) influence medical decision making. In terms of policy, the Ministry of Health has increasingly mentioned patient-centered care as a component of healthcare delivery while the Malaysian Medical Council's guidelines on doctors' duties mentioned collaborative partnerships as a goal of doctor-patient relationships. Current research on SDM comprises baseline surveys of decisional role preferences, development and implementation of locally developed patient decision aids, and conducting of SDM training workshops. Most of this research is carried out by public research universities. In summary, the current state of SDM in Malaysia is still at its infancy. However, there are increasing recognition and efforts from the academic institutions and Ministry of Health to conduct research in SDM, develop patient decision support tools and initiate national discussion on patient involvement in decision making. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Computerized Decision Aids for Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: Systematic Review.

PubMed

Staszewska, Anna; Zaki, Pearl; Lee, Joon

2017-10-06

Shared decision making (SDM) is important in achieving patient-centered care. SDM tools such as decision aids are intended to inform the patient. When used to assist in decision making between treatments, decision aids have been shown to reduce decisional conflict, increase ease of decision making, and increase modification of previous decisions. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes related to SDM for seriously ill patients. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the impact of computerized decision aids on patient-centered outcomes and SDM in serious illness. Six RCTs were identified and data were extracted on study population, design, and results. Risk of bias was assessed by a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials. Six RCTs tested decision tools in varying serious illnesses. Three studies compared different computerized decision aids against each other and a control. All but one study demonstrated improvement in at least one patient-centered outcome. Computerized decision tools may reduce unnecessary treatment in patients with low disease severity in comparison with informational pamphlets. Additionally, electronic health record (EHR) portals may provide the opportunity to manage care from the home for individuals affected by illness. The quality of decision aids is of great importance. Furthermore, satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decisional conflict. Finally, patients may benefit from computerized decision tools without the need for increased physician involvement. Most computerized decision aids improved at least one patient-centered outcome. All RCTs identified were at a High Risk of Bias or Unclear Risk of Bias. Effort should be made to improve the quality of RCTs testing SDM aids in serious

[Shared decision making in breast cancer. Womens' attitudes].

PubMed

Martín-Fernández, Roberto; Abt-Sacks, Analía; Perestelo-Perez, Lilisbeth; Serrano-Aguilar, Pedro

2013-01-01

The patient autonomy and the greater role for women with breast cancer in the decisions about their health are recent issues in healthcare. The objective of this work is to identify and characterize the elements that influence them in treatment decisions. A phenomenological type qualitative study. Theoretical Sampling included 70 women diagnosed with breast cancer. 45 semi structured interviews and 3 focus groups were performed between October 2009 and July 2010 in 15 regions of Spain. The analysis was based on the principles of grounded theory with the support of Atlas.ti v6.1. Patients are likely to take an active or passive role regarding decision-making depending on different variables such as their age, the information available, their self-assessment as capable agents to make decisions and the relative importance given to physical appearance. As the disease progresses, it can cause a change in women attitude, from an initially passive attitude to a more active role. The attitude of health professionals concerning shared decision-making and the information they offer determines patient participation while the family plays an essential role as a support or reinforcement of decisions made by patients. The patients' attitude regarding the decision-making of patients is very variable, becoming increasingly important the emotional status, the level of information available and the influence of the context.

The role of depression pharmacogenetic decision support tools in shared decision making.

PubMed

Arandjelovic, Katarina; Eyre, Harris A; Lenze, Eric; Singh, Ajeet B; Berk, Michael; Bousman, Chad

2017-10-29

Patients discontinue antidepressant medications due to lack of knowledge, unrealistic expectations, and/or unacceptable side effects. Shared decision making (SDM) invites patients to play an active role in their treatment and may indirectly improve outcomes through enhanced engagement in care, adherence to treatment, and positive expectancy of medication outcomes. We believe decisional aids, such as pharmacogenetic decision support tools (PDSTs), facilitate SDM in the clinical setting. PDSTs may likewise predict drug tolerance and efficacy, and therefore adherence and effectiveness on an individual-patient level. There are several important ethical considerations to be navigated when integrating PDSTs into clinical practice. The field requires greater empirical research to demonstrate clinical utility, and the mechanisms thereof, as well as exploration of the ethical use of these technologies.

Shared Decision Making in Education Governance Using Business Portals

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Peoples, Adrian L.

2009-01-01

The purpose of this study was to address a high-volume problem for the Delaware Department of Education Office of Professional Accountability (OPA). This problem was addressed by sharing the certification decision with qualified personnel located at each of the four teacher preparation programs located in Delaware at Delaware State University…

Pairing Physician Education With Patient Activation to Improve Shared Decisions in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

PubMed Central

Wilkes, Michael S.; Day, Frank C.; Srinivasan, Malathi; Griffin, Erin; Tancredi, Daniel J.; Rainwater, Julie A.; Kravitz, Richard L.; Bell, Douglas S.; Hoffman, Jerome R.

2013-01-01

BACKGROUND Most expert groups recommend shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Most primary care physicians, however, routinely order a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test with little or no discussion about whether they believe the potential benefits justify the risk of harm. We sought to assess whether educating primary care physicians and activating their patients to ask about prostate cancer screening had a synergistic effect on shared decision making, rates and types of discussions about prostate cancer screening, and the physician’s final recommendations. METHODS Our study was a cluster randomized controlled trial among primary care physicians and their patients, comparing usual education (control), with physician education alone (MD-Ed), and with physician education and patient activation (MD-Ed+A). Participants included 120 physicians in 5 group practices, and 712 male patients aged 50 to 75 years. The interventions comprised a Web-based educational program for all intervention physicians and MD-Ed+A patients compared with usual education (brochures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The primary outcome measure was patients’ reported postvisit shared decision making regarding prostate cancer screening; secondary measures included unannounced standardized patients’ reported shared decision making and the physician’s recommendation for prostate cancer screening. RESULTS Patients’ ratings of shared decision making were moderate and did not differ between groups. MD-Ed+A patients reported that physicians had higher prostate cancer screening discussion rates (MD-Ed+A = 65%, MD-Ed = 41%, control=38%; P <.01). Standardized patients reported that physicians seeing MD-Ed+A patients were more neutral during prostate cancer screening recommendations (MD-Ed+A=50%, MD-Ed=33%, control=15%; P <.05). Of the male patients, 80% had had previous PSA tests. CONCLUSIONS Although activating physicians and patients did not lead to

Effective follow-up consultations: the importance of patient-centered communication and shared decision making.

PubMed

Brand, Paul L P; Stiggelbout, Anne M

2013-12-01

Paediatricians spend a considerable proportion of their time performing follow-up visits for children with chronic conditions, but they rarely receive specific training on how best to perform such consultations. The traditional method of running a follow-up consultation is based on the doctor's agenda, and is problem-oriented. Patients and parents, however, prefer a patient-centered, and solution-focused approach. Although many physicians now recognize the importance of addressing the patient's perspective in a follow-up consultation, a number of barriers hamper its implementation in practice, including time constraints, lack of appropriate training, and a strong tradition of the biomedical, doctor-centered approach. Addressing the patient's perspective successfully can be achieved through shared decision making, clinicians and patients making decisions together based on the best clinical evidence. Research shows that shared decision making not only increases patient, parent, and physician satisfaction with the consultation, but also may improve health outcomes. Shared decision making involves building a physician-patient-parent partnership, agreeing on the problem at hand, laying out the available options with their benefits and risks, eliciting the patient's views and preferences on these options, and agreeing on a course of action. Shared decision making requires specific communication skills, which can be learned, and should be mastered through deliberate practice. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Impact of a Lung Cancer Screening Counseling and Shared Decision-Making Visit.

PubMed

Mazzone, Peter J; Tenenbaum, Amanda; Seeley, Meredith; Petersen, Hilary; Lyon, Christina; Han, Xiaozhen; Wang, Xiao-Feng

2017-03-01

Lung cancer screening is a complex balance of benefits and harms. A counseling and shared decision-making visit has been mandated to assist patients with the decision about participation in screening. To our knowledge, the impact of this visit on patient understanding and decisions has not been studied. We developed a centralized counseling and shared decision-making visit for our lung cancer screening program. The visit included confirmation of eligibility for screening, education supported by a narrated slide show, individualized risk assessment with a decision aid, time for answering questions, and data collection. We surveyed consecutive patients prior to the visit, immediately after the visit, and 1 month after the visit to determine the impact of the visit on their knowledge. Twenty-three of 423 patients (5.4%) who had a visit did not proceed to the screening CT scan. One hundred twenty-five consecutive patients completed the initial survey, 122 completed the postvisit survey, and 113 completed the 1-month follow-up survey. Prior to the visit, the patients had a poor level of understanding about the age and smoking eligibility criteria (8.8% and 13.6% correct, respectively) and the benefits and harms of screening (55.2% and 38.4% correct, respectively). There was a significant improvement in knowledge noted after the visit for all questions (P = .03 to P < .0001). Knowledge waned by the 1-month follow-up but remained higher than it was before the visit. A centralized counseling and shared decision-making visit impacts the patient's knowledge about the eligibility criteria, benefits, and harms of lung cancer screening with LDCT, helping patients make value-based decisions. Copyright © 2016 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Temporal characteristics of decisions in hospital encounters: a threshold for shared decision making? A qualitative study.

PubMed

Ofstad, Eirik H; Frich, Jan C; Schei, Edvin; Frankel, Richard M; Gulbrandsen, Pål

2014-11-01

To identify and characterize physicians' statements that contained evidence of clinically relevant decisions in encounters with patients in different hospital settings. Qualitative analysis of 50 videotaped encounters from wards, the emergency room (ER) and outpatient clinics in a department of internal medicine at a Norwegian university hospital. Clinical decisions could be grouped in a temporal order: decisions which had already been made, and were brought into the encounter by the physician (preformed decisions), decisions made in the present (here-and-now decisions), and decisions prescribing future actions given a certain course of events (conditional decisions). Preformed decisions were a hallmark in the ward and conditional decisions a main feature of ER encounters. Clinical decisions related to a patient-physician encounter spanned a time frame exceeding the duration of the encounter. While a distribution of decisions over time and space fosters sharing and dilution of responsibility between providers, it makes the decision making process hard to access for patients. In order to plan when and how to involve patients in decisions, physicians need increased awareness of when clinical decisions are made, who usually makes them, and who should make them. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Differing levels of clinical evidence: exploring communication challenges in shared decision making. Introduction.

PubMed

Smith, Quentin W; Street, Richard L; Volk, Robert J; Fordis, Michael

2013-02-01

The near ubiquitous access to information is transforming the roles and relationships among clinical professionals, patients, and their care givers in nearly all aspects of healthcare. Informed patients engage their physicians in conversations about their conditions, options and the tradeoffs among diagnostic and therapeutic benefits and harms. The processes of care today increasingly and explicitly integrate exploration of patient values and preferences as patients and clinicians jointly engage in reaching decisions about care. The informed patient of today who can understand and use scientific information can participate as an equal partner with her clinician. Others with beliefs or educational, cultural, or literacy backgrounds that pose challenges to comprehending and applying evidence may face disenfranchisement. These barriers are significant enough, even in the face of certainty of evidence, that clinicians and investigators have given much thought to how best to engage all patients in decision making. However, barriers remain, as most decision making must occur in settings where uncertainty, if not considerable uncertainty, accompanies any statement of what we know. In September 2011, health care and health communication experts came together in Rockville, Maryland under the auspices of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) John M. Eisenberg Center for Clinical Decisions and Communications Science Annual Meeting to explore the challenges of differing levels of evidence in promoting shared decisions and to propose strategies for going forward in addressing these challenges. Eight scholarly papers emerged, and with this introductory article, comprise this special issue of Medical Care Research and Review.

Shared decision-making and interprofessional collaboration in mental healthcare: a qualitative study exploring perceptions of barriers and facilitators.

PubMed

Chong, Wei Wen; Aslani, Parisa; Chen, Timothy F

2013-09-01

Shared decision-making and interprofessional collaboration are important approaches to achieving consumer-centered care. The concept of shared decision-making has been expanded recently to include the interprofessional healthcare team. This study explored healthcare providers' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to both shared decision-making and interprofessional collaboration in mental healthcare. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 healthcare providers, including medical practitioners (psychiatrists, general practitioners), pharmacists, nurses, occupational therapists, psychologists and social workers. Healthcare providers identified several factors as barriers to, and facilitators of shared decision-making that could be categorized into three major themes: factors associated with mental health consumers, factors associated with healthcare providers and factors associated with healthcare service delivery. Consumers' lack of competence to participate was frequently perceived by mental health specialty providers to be a primary barrier to shared decision-making, while information provision on illness and treatment to consumers was cited by healthcare providers from all professions to be an important facilitator of shared decision-making. Whilst healthcare providers perceived interprofessional collaboration to be influenced by healthcare provider, environmental and systemic factors, emphasis of the factors differed among healthcare providers. To facilitate interprofessional collaboration, mental health specialty providers emphasized the importance of improving mental health expertise among general practitioners and community pharmacists, whereas general health providers were of the opinion that information sharing between providers and healthcare settings was the key. The findings of this study suggest that changes may be necessary at several levels (i.e. consumer, provider and environment) to implement effective shared decision-making and

Acceptance of shared decision making with reference to an electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) and its association to decision making in patients: an evaluation study.

PubMed

Hirsch, Oliver; Keller, Heidemarie; Krones, Tanja; Donner-Banzhoff, Norbert

2011-07-07

Decision aids based on the philosophy of shared decision making are designed to help patients make informed choices among diagnostic or treatment options by delivering evidence-based information on options and outcomes. A patient decision aid can be regarded as a complex intervention because it consists of several presumably relevant components. Decision aids have rarely been field tested to assess patients' and physicians' attitudes towards them. It is also unclear what effect decision aids have on the adherence to chosen options. The electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) to be used within the clinical encounter has a modular structure and contains evidence-based decision aids for the following topics: cardiovascular prevention, atrial fibrillation, coronary heart disease, oral antidiabetics, conventional and intensified insulin therapy, and unipolar depression. We conducted an evaluation study in which 29 primary care physicians included 192 patients. After the consultation, patients filled in questionnaires and were interviewed via telephone two months later. We used generalised estimation equations to measure associations within patient variables and traditional crosstab analyses. Patients were highly satisfied with arriba-lib and the process of shared decision making. Two-thirds of patients reached in the telephone interview wanted to be counselled again with arriba-lib. There was a high congruence between preferred and perceived decision making. Of those patients reached in the telephone interview, 80.7% said that they implemented the decision, independent of gender and education. Elderly patients were more likely to say that they implemented the decision. Shared decision making with our multi-modular electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) was accepted by a high number of patients. It has positive associations to general aspects of decision making in patients. It can be used for patient groups with a wide range of individual

Shared Decision Making in Common Chronic Conditions: Impact of a Resident Training Workshop.

PubMed

Simmons, Leigh; Leavitt, Lauren; Ray, Alaka; Fosburgh, Blair; Sepucha, Karen

2016-01-01

Physicians must be competent in several different kinds of communication skills in order to implement shared decision making; however, these skills are not part of routine medical student education, nor are they formally taught during residency training. We developed a 1- and 2-hour workshop curriculum for internal medicine residents to promote shared decision making in treatment decisions for four common chronic conditions: diabetes, depression, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. The workshops included a written case exercise, a short didactic presentation on shared decision-making concepts and strategies for risk communication, and two role-playing exercises focused on decision making for depression and hyperlipidemia treatment. We delivered the workshop as a required component of the resident curriculum in ambulatory medicine. To evaluate the impact of the workshop, we used written course evaluations, tracked the use of the newly introduced Decision Worksheets, and asked preceptors to perform direct observation of treatment decision conversations. Residents were involved in the development of the workshop and helped identify key content, suggested framing for difficult topics, and confirmed the need for the skills workshop. One hundred thirty internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics residents attended 8 workshops over a 4-month period. In written cases completed before the workshop, the majority of residents indicated that they would discuss medications, but few mentioned other treatment options or documented patients' goals and preferences in a sample encounter note with a patient with new depression symptoms. Overall, most participants (89.7%) rated the workshop as excellent or very good, and 93.5% said that they would change their practice based on what they learned. Decision Worksheets addressing diabetes, depression, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension were available on a primary care-focused intranet site and were downloaded almost 1,200 times in the first 8

The effect of simulated narratives that leverage EMR data on shared decision-making: a pilot study.

PubMed

Zeng-Treitler, Qing; Gibson, Bryan; Hill, Brent; Butler, Jorie; Christensen, Carrie; Redd, Douglas; Shao, Yijun; Bray, Bruce

2016-07-22

Shared decision-making can improve patient satisfaction and outcomes. To participate in shared decision-making, patients need information about the potential risks and benefits of treatment options. Our team has developed a novel prototype tool for shared decision-making called hearts like mine (HLM) that leverages EHR data to provide personalized information to patients regarding potential outcomes of different treatments. These potential outcomes are presented through an Icon array and/or simulated narratives for each "person" in the display. In this pilot project we sought to determine whether the inclusion of simulated narratives in the display affects individuals' decision-making. Thirty subjects participated in this block-randomized study in which they used a version of HLM with simulated narratives and a version without (or in the opposite order) to make a hypothetical therapeutic decision. After each decision, participants completed a questionnaire that measured decisional confidence. We used Chi square tests to compare decisions across conditions and Mann-Whitney U tests to examine the effects of narratives on decisional confidence. Finally, we calculated the mean of subjects' post-experiment rating of whether narratives were helpful in their decision-making. In this study, there was no effect of simulated narratives on treatment decisions (decision 1: Chi squared = 0, p = 1.0; decision 2: Chi squared = 0.574, p = 0.44) or Decisional confidence (decision 1, w = 105.5, p = 0.78; decision 2, w = 86.5, p = 0.28). Post-experiment, participants reported that narratives helped them to make decisions (mean = 3.3/4). We found that simulated narratives had no measurable effect on decisional confidence or decisions and most participants felt that the narratives were helpful to them in making therapeutic decisions. The use of simulated stories holds promise for promoting shared decision-making while minimizing their potential biasing effect.

Shared decision-making for people living with dementia in extended care settings: a systematic review.

PubMed

Daly, Rachel Louise; Bunn, Frances; Goodman, Claire

2018-06-09

Shared decision-making is recognised as an important element of person-centred dementia care. The aim of this review was to explore how people living with dementia and cognitive impairment can be included in day-to-day decisions about their health and care in extended care settings. A systematic review including primary research relating to shared decision-making, with cognitively impaired adults in (or transferrable to) extended care settings. Databases searched were: CINAHL, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, NICE Evidence, OpenGrey, Autism Data, Google Scholar, Scopus and Medicines Complete (June to October 2016 and updated 2018) for studies published in the last 20 years. Of the 19 included studies 15 involved people with living dementia, seven in extended care settings. People living with cognitive impairment often have the desire and ability to participate in decision-making about their everyday care, although this is regularly underestimated by their staff and family care partners. Shared decision-making has the potential to improve quality of life for both the person living with dementia and those who support them. How resources to support shared decision-making are implemented in extended care settings is less well understood. Evidence suggests that people living with cognitive impairment value opportunities to be involved in everyday decision-making about their care. How these opportunities are created, understood, supported and sustained in extended care settings remains to be determined. CRD42016035919. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Shared decision making in Swedish community mental health services - an evaluation of three self-reporting instruments.

PubMed

Rosenberg, David; Schön, Ulla-Karin; Nyholm, Maria; Grim, Katarina; Svedberg, Petra

2017-04-01

Despite the potential impact of shared decision making on users satisfaction with care and quality in health care decisions, there is a lack of knowledge and skills regarding how to work with shared decision making among health care providers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of three instruments that measure varied dimensions of shared decision making, based on self-reports by clients, in a Swedish community mental health context. The study sample consisted of 121 clients with experience of community mental health care, and involved in a wide range of decisions regarding both social support and treatment. The questionnaires were examined for face and content validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity. The instruments displayed good face and content validity, satisfactory internal consistency and a moderate to good level of stability in test-retest reliability with fair to moderate construct correlations, in a sample of clients with serious mental illness and experience of community mental health services in Sweden. The questionnaires are considered to be relevant to the decision making process, user-friendly and appropriate in a Swedish community mental health care context. They functioned well in settings where non-medical decisions, regarding social and support services, are the primary focus. The use of instruments that measure various dimensions of the self-reported experience of clients, can be a key factor in developing knowledge of how best to implement shared decision making in mental health services.

An assessment of the shared-decision model in parents of children with acute otitis media.

PubMed

Merenstein, Dan; Diener-West, Marie; Krist, Alex; Pinneger, Matthew; Cooper, Lisa A

2005-12-01

Medicine is shifting from a doctor-centered approach to a model entailing more shared decision-making. Many organizations now recommend a shared-decision approach to treating children with acute otitis media (AOM). Our primary objectives in this study were to assess (1) which style of decision-making on the physician's part would most effectively reduce parents' proclivity to use antibiotics for treatment of their child's AOM and (2) parental satisfaction with different doctor-patient decision-making styles. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to examine how parents respond to doctor-patient communication styles in 3 clinical vignettes that presented 2 versions of a shared-decision model (SDM) and 1 paternalistic model. Parents were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 3 vignettes. The main predictor variable was the vignette assignment, and the main outcomes were (1) parent proclivity to use antibiotics and (2) parent ratings of care by the physician in the vignette. Using logistic regression, we adjusted for caregivers' age, gender, income, knowledge of antibiotics, decision-making preference, confidence in physician, and length of relationship with personal physician. Four hundred sixty-six parents met inclusion criteria, with a response rate of 94%. General characteristics were similar across vignette assignment groups. Parents who received the paternalistic-model vignettes were more likely to say that they would use antibiotics than those who received the SDM vignettes (odds ratio: 4.9; 95% confidence interval: 2.3-10.6). This result remained statistically significant after adjustment for potential confounders. In addition, parents in the shared-decision groups were more satisfied (93% and 84%) than those in the paternalistic-model group (76%). To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine parent interest, acceptance, and satisfaction with the SDM. Our findings suggest that shared decision-making for AOM may lead to less antibiotic usage and higher

Enhancing Shared Decision Making Through Carefully Designed Interventions That Target Patient And Provider Behavior.

PubMed

Tai-Seale, Ming; Elwyn, Glyn; Wilson, Caroline J; Stults, Cheryl; Dillon, Ellis C; Li, Martina; Chuang, Judith; Meehan, Amy; Frosch, Dominick L

2016-04-01

Patient-provider communication and shared decision making are essential for primary care delivery and are vital contributors to patient experience and health outcomes. To alleviate communication shortfalls, we designed a novel, multidimensional intervention aimed at nudging both patients and primary care providers to communicate more openly. The intervention was tested against an existing intervention, which focused mainly on changing patients' behaviors, in four primary care clinics involving 26 primary care providers and 300 patients. Study results suggest that compared to usual care, both the novel and existing interventions were associated with better patient reports of how well primary care providers engaged them in shared decision making. Future research should build on the work in this pilot to rigorously examine the comparative effectiveness and scalability of these interventions to improve shared decision making at the point of care. Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.

Communicating statin evidence to support shared decision-making.

PubMed

Barrett, Bruce; Ricco, Jason; Wallace, Margaret; Kiefer, David; Rakel, Dave

2016-04-06

The practice of clinical medicine rests on a foundation of ethical principles as well as scientific knowledge. Clinicians must artfully balance the principle of beneficence, doing what is best for patients, with autonomy, allowing patients to make their own well-informed health care decisions. The clinical communication process is complicated by varying degrees of confidence in scientific evidence regarding patient-oriented benefits, and by the fact that most medical options are associated with possible harms as well as potential benefits. Evidence-based clinical guidelines often neglect patient-oriented issues involved with the thoughtful practice of shared decision-making, where individual values, goals, and preferences should be prioritized. Guidelines on the use of statin medications for preventing cardiovascular events are a case in point. Current guidelines endorse the use of statins for people whose 10-year risk of cardiovascular events is as low as 7.5%. Previous guidelines set the 10-year risk benchmark at 20%. Meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that statins can reduce cardiovascular event rates by about 25%, bringing 10-year risk from 7.5 to 5.6%, for example, or from 20 to 15%. Whether or not these benefits should justify the use of statins for individual patients depends on how those advantages are valued in comparison with disadvantages, such as side effect risks, and with inconveniences associated with taking a pill each day and visiting clinicians and laboratories regularly. Whether or not the overall benefit-harm balance justifies the use of a medication for an individual patient cannot be determined by a guidelines committee, a health care system, or even the attending physician. Instead, it is the individual patient who has a fundamental right to decide whether or not taking a drug is worthwhile. Researchers and professional organizations should endeavor to develop shared decision-making tools that provide up-to-date best evidence in

[Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in oncology: Patient perceptions].

PubMed

Ortega-Moreno, M; Padilla-Garrido, N; Huelva-López, L; Aguado-Correa, F; Bayo-Calero, J; Bayo-Lozano, E

To determine, from the point of view of the oncological patient, who made the decision about their treatment, as well as the major barriers and facilitators that enabled Shared Decision Making to be implemented. A cross-sectional, descriptive, sand association study using a self-report questionnaire to selected cancer patients, with casual sampling in different oncology clinics and random time periods. A total of 108 patients provided analysable data. The information was collected on sociodemographic and clinical variables, who made the decision about treatment, and level of agreement or disagreement with various barriers and facilitators. More than one-third (38.1%) of patients claimed to have participated in shared decision making with their doctor. Barriers such as, time, the difficulty of understanding, the paternalism, lack of fluid communication, and having preliminary and often erroneous information influenced the involvement in decision-making. However, to have or not have sufficient tools to aid decision making or the patient's interest to participate had no effect. As regards facilitators, physician motivation, their perception of improvement, and the interest of the patient had a positive influence. The exception was the possibility of financial incentives to doctors. The little, or no participation perceived by cancer patients in decisions about their health makes it necessary to introduce improvements in the health care model to overcome barriers and promote a more participatory attitude in the patient. Copyright © 2017 SECA. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Decision-making on shared sanitation in the informal settlements of Kisumu, Kenya.

PubMed

Simiyu, Sheillah; Swilling, Mark; Cairncross, Sandy

2017-10-01

Unlike most quantitative studies that investigate decision-making on investing in sanitation, this study adopted a qualitative approach to investigate decision-making on shared sanitation in the informal settlements of Kisumu city, in Kenya. Using a grounded theory approach, landlords and tenants were interviewed to identify sanitation decisions, individuals involved in decision-making and factors influencing decision-making. The results indicate that the main sanitation decisions are on investment, emptying, repair and cleaning. Landlords make investment, emptying and repair decisions, while tenants make cleaning decisions. Absentee landlords are less involved in most decision-making compared to live-in landlords, who rarely consult tenants in decision-making. Tenants make decisions after consultations with a third party and often collectively with other tenants. Sanitation interventions in informal settlements should thus, target landlords and tenants, with investment efforts being directed at landlords and maintenance efforts at tenants.

The Evolution of an Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Research Program: Reflective Case Study of an Emerging Paradigm

PubMed Central

Menear, Matthew; Stacey, Dawn; Brière, Nathalie; Légaré, France

2016-01-01

Introduction: Healthcare research increasingly focuses on interprofessional collaboration and on shared decision making, but knowledge gaps remain about effective strategies for implementing interprofessional collaboration and shared decision-making together in clinical practice. We used Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions to reflect on how an integrated interprofessional shared decision-making approach was developed and implemented over time. Methods: In 2007, an interdisciplinary team initiated a new research program to promote the implementation of an interprofessional shared decision-making approach in clinical settings. For this reflective case study, two new team members analyzed the team’s four projects, six research publications, one unpublished and two published protocols and organized them into recognizable phases according to Kuhn’s theory. Results: The merging of two young disciplines led to challenges characteristic of emerging paradigms. Implementation of interprofessional shared-decision making was hindered by a lack of conceptual clarity, a dearth of theories and models, little methodological guidance, and insufficient evaluation instruments. The team developed a new model, identified new tools, and engaged knowledge users in a theory-based approach to implementation. However, several unresolved challenges remain. Discussion: This reflective case study sheds light on the evolution of interdisciplinary team science. It offers new approaches to implementing emerging knowledge in the clinical context. PMID:28435417

The Evolution of an Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Research Program: Reflective Case Study of an Emerging Paradigm.

PubMed

Dogba, Maman Joyce; Menear, Matthew; Stacey, Dawn; Brière, Nathalie; Légaré, France

2016-07-19

Healthcare research increasingly focuses on interprofessional collaboration and on shared decision making, but knowledge gaps remain about effective strategies for implementing interprofessional collaboration and shared decision-making together in clinical practice. We used Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions to reflect on how an integrated interprofessional shared decision-making approach was developed and implemented over time. In 2007, an interdisciplinary team initiated a new research program to promote the implementation of an interprofessional shared decision-making approach in clinical settings. For this reflective case study, two new team members analyzed the team's four projects, six research publications, one unpublished and two published protocols and organized them into recognizable phases according to Kuhn's theory. The merging of two young disciplines led to challenges characteristic of emerging paradigms. Implementation of interprofessional shared-decision making was hindered by a lack of conceptual clarity, a dearth of theories and models, little methodological guidance, and insufficient evaluation instruments. The team developed a new model, identified new tools, and engaged knowledge users in a theory-based approach to implementation. However, several unresolved challenges remain. This reflective case study sheds light on the evolution of interdisciplinary team science. It offers new approaches to implementing emerging knowledge in the clinical context.

Cultural influences on the physician-patient encounter: The case of shared treatment decision-making.

PubMed

Charles, Cathy; Gafni, Amiram; Whelan, Tim; O'Brien, Mary Ann

2006-11-01

In this paper we discuss the influence of culture on the process of treatment decision-making, and in particular, shared treatment decision-making in the physician-patient encounter. We explore two key issues: (1) the meaning of culture and the ways that it can affect treatment decision-making; (2) cultural issues and assumptions underlying the development and use of treatment decision aids. This is a conceptual paper. Based on our knowledge and reading of the key literature in the treatment decision-making field, we looked for written examples where cultural influences were taken into account when discussing the physician-patient encounter and when designing instruments (decision aids) to help patients participate in making decisions. Our assessment of the situation is that to date, and with some recent exceptions, research in the above areas has not been culturally sensitive. We suggest that more research attention should be focused on exploring potential cultural variations in the meaning of and preferences for shared decision-making as well as on the applicability across cultural groups of decision aids developed to facilitate patient participation in treatment decision-making with physicians. Both patients and physicians need to be aware of the cultural assumptions underlying the development and use of decision aids and assess their cultural sensitivity to the needs and preferences of patients in diverse cultural groups.

A critical narrative analysis of shared decision-making in acute inpatient mental health care.

PubMed

Stacey, Gemma; Felton, Anne; Morgan, Alastair; Stickley, Theo; Willis, Martin; Diamond, Bob; Houghton, Philip; Johnson, Beverley; Dumenya, John

2016-01-01

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a high priority in healthcare policy and is complementary to the recovery philosophy in mental health care. This agenda has been operationalised within the Values-Based Practice (VBP) framework, which offers a theoretical and practical model to promote democratic interprofessional approaches to decision-making. However, these are limited by a lack of recognition of the implications of power implicit within the mental health system. This study considers issues of power within the context of decision-making and examines to what extent decisions about patients' care on acute in-patient wards are perceived to be shared. Focus groups were conducted with 46 mental health professionals, service users, and carers. The data were analysed using the framework of critical narrative analysis (CNA). The findings of the study suggested each group constructed different identity positions, which placed them as inside or outside of the decision-making process. This reflected their view of themselves as best placed to influence a decision on behalf of the service user. In conclusion, the discourse of VBP and SDM needs to take account of how differentials of power and the positioning of speakers affect the context in which decisions take place.

What Motivates Family Physicians to Participate in Training Programs in Shared Decision Making?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Allaire, Anne-Sophie; Labrecque, Michel; Giguere, Anik; Gagnon, Marie-Pierre; Legare, France

2012-01-01

Introduction: Little is known about the factors that influence family physician (FP) participation in continuing professional development (CPD) programs in shared decision making (SDM). We sought to identify the factors that motivate FPs to participate in DECISION+, a CPD program in SDM. Methods: In 2007-2008, we collected data from 39 FPs who…

Physicians Perceptions of Shared Decision-Making in Neonatal and Pediatric Critical Care.

PubMed

Richards, Claire A; Starks, Helene; O'Connor, M Rebecca; Bourget, Erica; Hays, Ross M; Doorenbos, Ardith Z

2018-04-01

Most children die in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units after decisions are made to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments. These decisions can be challenging when there are different views about the child's best interest and when there is a lack of clarity about how best to also consider the interests of the family. To understand how neonatal and pediatric critical care physicians balance and integrate the interests of the child and family in decisions about life-sustaining treatments. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 22 physicians from neonatal, pediatric, and cardiothoracic intensive care units in a single quaternary care pediatric hospital. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using content and thematic analysis. We identified 3 main themes: (1) beliefs about child and family interests; (2) disagreement about the child's best interest; and (3) decision-making strategies, including limiting options, being directive, staying neutral, and allowing parents to come to their own conclusions. Physicians described challenges to implementing shared decision-making including unequal power and authority, clinical uncertainty, and complexity of balancing child and family interests. They acknowledged determining the level of engagement in shared decision-making with parents (vs routine engagement) based on their perceptions of the best interests of the child and parent. Due to power imbalances, families' values and preferences may not be integrated in decisions or families may be excluded from discussions about goals of care. We suggest that a systematic approach to identify parental preferences and needs for decisional roles and information may reduce variability in parental involvement.

Primary Care Physician Involvement in Shared Decision Making for Critically Ill Patients and Family Satisfaction with Care.

PubMed

Huang, Kevin B; Weber, Urs; Johnson, Jennifer; Anderson, Nathanial; Knies, Andrea K; Nhundu, Belinda; Bautista, Cynthia; Poskus, Kelly; Sheth, Kevin N; Hwang, David Y

2018-01-01

An intensive care unit (ICU) patient's primary care physician (PCP) may be able to assist family with certain ICU shared medical decisions. We explored whether families of patients in nonopen ICUs who nevertheless report involvement of a patient's PCP in medical decision making are more satisfied with ICU shared decision making than families who do not. Between March 2013 and December 2015, we administered the Family Satisfaction in the ICU 24 survey to family members of adult neuroscience ICU patients. We compared the mean score for the survey subsection regarding shared decision making (graded on a 100-point scale), as well as individual survey items, between those who reported the patient's PCP involvement in any medical decision making versus those who did not. Among 263 respondents, there was no difference in mean overall decision-making satisfaction scores for those who reported involvement (81.1; SD = 15.2) versus those who did not (80.1; SD = 12.8; P = .16). However, a higher proportion reporting involvement felt completely satisfied with their 1) inclusion in the ICU decision making process (75.9% vs 61.4%; P = .055), and 2) control over the care of the patient (73.6% vs 55.6%; P = .02), with no difference regarding consistency of clinical information provided by the medical team (64.8% vs 63.5%; P = 1.00). Families who report involvement of a patient's PCP in medical decision making for critically ill patients may be more satisfied than those who do not with regard to specific aspects of ICU decision making. Further research would help understand how best to engage PCPs in shared decisions. © Copyright 2018 by the American Board of Family Medicine.

Shared Decision Making and Other Variables as Correlates of Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions in a United States National Survey

PubMed Central

Wills, Celia E.; Holloman, Christopher; Olson, Jacklyn; Hechmer, Catherine; Miller, Carla K.; Duchemin, Anne-Marie

2012-01-01

Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between shared decision-making (SDM) and satisfaction with decision (SWD) within a larger survey of patient decision-making in health care consultations. Methods A randomly selected age-proportionate national sample of adults (aged 21–70 years) stratified on race, ethnicity, and gender (N = 488) was recruited from a health research volunteer registry and completed an online survey with reference to a recent health consultation. Measures included the Shared Decision Making-9 questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), Satisfaction With Decision (SWD) scale, sociodemographic, health, and other standardized decision-making measures. Forward selection weighted multiple regression analysis was used to model correlates of SWD. Results After controlling for sociodemographic variables, SDM-Q-9 total score was associated with SWD, adjusted R2 = .368, p < .001. Three of nine SDM-Q-9 items accounted for significant proportions of variance in SWD. Conclusion SDM was positively associated with SWD and was strongest for three areas of SDM: patients being helped in a health care consultation with understanding information, with treatment preference elicitation, and with weighing options thoroughly. Practice Implications By identifying variables such as SDM that are associated with SWD, health care interventions can better target modifiable factors to enhance satisfaction and other outcomes. PMID:22410642

Shared decision making and other variables as correlates of satisfaction with health care decisions in a United States national survey.

PubMed

Glass, Katherine Elizabeth; Wills, Celia E; Holloman, Christopher; Olson, Jacklyn; Hechmer, Catherine; Miller, Carla K; Duchemin, Anne-Marie

2012-07-01

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between shared decision-making (SDM) and satisfaction with decision (SWD) within a larger survey of patient decision-making in health care consultations. A randomly selected age-proportionate national sample of adults (aged 21-70 years) stratified on race, ethnicity, and gender (N=488) was recruited from a health research volunteer registry and completed an online survey with reference to a recent health consultation. Measures included the shared decision making-9 questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), Satisfaction With Decision (SWD) scale, sociodemographic, health, and other standardized decision-making measures. Forward selection weighted multiple regression analysis was used to model correlates of SWD. After controlling for sociodemographic variables, SDM-Q-9 total score was associated with SWD, adjusted R(2)=.368, p<.001. Three of nine SDM-Q-9 items accounted for significant proportions of variance in SWD. SDM was positively associated with SWD and was strongest for three areas of SDM: patients being helped in a health care consultation with understanding information, with treatment preference elicitation, and with weighing options thoroughly. By identifying variables such as SDM that are associated with SWD, health care interventions can better target modifiable factors to enhance satisfaction and other outcomes. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Group Health's participation in a shared decision-making demonstration yielded lessons, such as role of culture change.

PubMed

King, Jaime; Moulton, Benjamin

2013-02-01

In 2007 Washington State became the first state to enact legislation encouraging the use of shared decision making and decision aids to address deficiencies in the informed-consent process. Group Health volunteered to fulfill a legislated mandate to study the costs and benefits of integrating these shared decision-making processes into clinical practice across a range of conditions for which multiple treatment options are available. The Group Health Demonstration Project, conducted during 2009-11, yielded five key lessons for successful implementation, including the synergy between efforts to reduce practice variation and increase shared decision making; the need to support modifications in practice with changes in physician training and culture; and the value of identifying best implementation methods through constant evaluation and iterative improvement. These lessons, and the legislated provisions that supported successful implementation, can guide other states and health care institutions moving toward informed patient choice as the standard of care for medical decision making.

Key concepts relevant to quality of complex and shared decision-making in health care: a literature review.

PubMed

Dy, Sydney M; Purnell, Tanjala S

2012-02-01

High-quality provider-patient decision-making is key to quality care for complex conditions. We performed an analysis of key elements relevant to quality and complex, shared medical decision-making. Based on a search of electronic databases, including Medline and the Cochrane Library, as well as relevant articles' reference lists, reviews of tools, and annotated bibliographies, we developed a list of key concepts and applied them to a decision-making example. Key concepts identified included provider competence, trustworthiness, and cultural competence; communication with patients and families; information quality; patient/surrogate competence; and roles and involvement. We applied this concept list to a case example, shared decision-making for live donor kidney transplantation, and identified the likely most important concepts as provider and cultural competence, information quality, and communication with patients and families. This concept list may be useful for conceptualizing the quality of complex shared decision-making and in guiding research in this area. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Retrieval of publications addressing shared decision making: an evaluation of full-text searches on medical journal websites.

PubMed

Blanc, Xavier; Collet, Tinh-Hai; Auer, Reto; Iriarte, Pablo; Krause, Jan; Légaré, France; Cornuz, Jacques; Clair, Carole

2015-04-07

Full-text searches of articles increase the recall, defined by the proportion of relevant publications that are retrieved. However, this method is rarely used in medical research due to resource constraints. For the purpose of a systematic review of publications addressing shared decision making, a full-text search method was required to retrieve publications where shared decision making does not appear in the title or abstract. The objective of our study was to assess the efficiency and reliability of full-text searches in major medical journals for identifying shared decision making publications. A full-text search was performed on the websites of 15 high-impact journals in general internal medicine to look up publications of any type from 1996-2011 containing the phrase "shared decision making". The search method was compared with a PubMed search of titles and abstracts only. The full-text search was further validated by requesting all publications from the same time period from the individual journal publishers and searching through the collected dataset. The full-text search for "shared decision making" on journal websites identified 1286 publications in 15 journals compared to 119 through the PubMed search. The search within the publisher-provided publications of 6 journals identified 613 publications compared to 646 with the full-text search on the respective journal websites. The concordance rate was 94.3% between both full-text searches. Full-text searching on medical journal websites is an efficient and reliable way to identify relevant articles in the field of shared decision making for review or other purposes. It may be more widely used in biomedical research in other fields in the future, with the collaboration of publishers and journals toward open-access data.

The Association of Patient Chronic Disease Burden and Self-Management Requirements With Shared Decision Making in Primary Care Visits

PubMed Central

Drum, Melinda; Cooper, Lisa A.

2014-01-01

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is associated with positive health outcomes and may be particularly relevant for patients with chronic disease. Objectives: To investigate whether (1) patients with chronic diseases, particularly those requiring self-management, are more likely to engage in SDM behaviors than patients without chronic diseases and (2) patients with chronic diseases are more likely to have their physicians engage them in SDM. Design: A cross-sectional study of patients who were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial to improve patient–physician communication. Participants: Adult patients with hypertension at community health clinics in Baltimore, Maryland. Approach: We used multivariable regression models to examine the associations of the following predictor variables: (1) chronic disease burden and (2) diseases requiring self-management with the following outcome variables measuring SDM components: (1) patient information sharing, (2) patient decision making, and (3) physician SDM facilitation. Key Results: Patients with greater chronic disease burden and more diseases requiring self-management reported more information sharing (β = .07, P = .03 and β = .12, P = .046, respectively) and decision making (β = .06, P = .02 and β = .21, P < .001) as did patients who reported poor general health. Physician facilitation of SDM was not associated with chronic disease burden or with diseases requiring self-management but was associated with higher patient income. Conclusions: Patients with chronic diseases, particularly those requiring self-management, may be more likely to engage in SDM behaviors, but physicians may not be more likely to engage such patients in SDM. Targeting patients with chronic disease for SDM may improve health outcomes among the chronically ill, particularly among vulnerable patients (eg, minorities, low-income patients) who suffer disproportionately from such conditions. PMID:26640812

Factors influencing women's perceptions of shared decision making during labor and delivery: Results from a large-scale cohort study of first childbirth.

PubMed

Attanasio, Laura B; Kozhimannil, Katy B; Kjerulff, Kristen H

2018-06-01

To examine correlates of shared decision making during labor and delivery. Data were from a cohort of women who gave birth to their first baby in Pennsylvania, 2009-2011 (N = 3006). We used logistic regression models to examine the association between labor induction and mode of delivery in relation to women's perceptions of shared decision making, and to investigate race/ethnicity and SES as potential moderators. Women who were Black and who did not have a college degree or private insurance were less likely to report high shared decision making, as well as women who underwent labor induction, instrumental vaginal or cesarean delivery. Models with interaction terms showed that the reduction in odds of shared decision making associated with cesarean delivery was greater for Black women than for White women. Women in marginalized social groups were less likely to report shared decision making during birth and Black women who delivered by cesarean had particularly low odds of shared decision making. Strategies designed to improve the quality of patient-provider communication, information sharing, and shared decision making must be attentive to the needs of vulnerable groups to ensure that such interventions reduce rather than widen disparities. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice.

PubMed

Kane, Heather L; Halpern, Michael T; Squiers, Linda B; Treiman, Katherine A; McCormack, Lauren A

2014-01-01

Engaging individuals with cancer in decision making about their treatments has received increased attention; shared decision making (SDM) has become a hallmark of patient-centered care. Although physicians indicate substantial interest in SDM, implementing SDM in cancer care is often complex; high levels of uncertainty may exist, and health care providers must help patients understand the potential risks versus benefits of different treatment options. However, patients who are more engaged in their health care decision making are more likely to experience confidence in and satisfaction with treatment decisions and increased trust in their providers. To implement SDM in oncology practice, physicians and other health care providers need to understand the components of SDM and the approaches to supporting and facilitating this process as part of cancer care. This review summarizes recent information regarding patient and physician factors that influence SDM for cancer care, outcomes resulting from successful SDM, and strategies for implementing SDM in oncology practice. We present a conceptual model illustrating the components of SDM in cancer care and provide recommendations for facilitating SDM in oncology practice. © 2014 American Cancer Society, Inc.

Shared decision making in the medical encounter: are we all talking about the same thing?

PubMed

Moumjid, Nora; Gafni, Amiram; Brémond, Alain; Carrère, Marie-Odile

2007-01-01

This article aims to explore 1) whether after all the research done on shared decision making (SDM) in the medical encounter, a clear definition (or definitions) of SDM exists; 2) whether authors provide a definition of SDM when they use the term; 3) and whether authors are consistent, throughout a given paper, with respect to the research described and the definition they propose or cite. The authors searched different databases (Medline, HealthStar, Cinahl, Cancerlit, Sociological Abstracts, and Econlit) from 1997 to December 2004. The keywords used were informed decision making and shared decision making as these are the keywords more often encountered in the literature. The languages selected were English and French. The 76 reported papers show that 1) several authors clearly define what they mean by SDM or by another closely related phrase, such as informed shared decision making. 2) About a third of the papers reviewed (25/76) cite these authors although 8 of them do not use the term in a manner consistent with the definition cited. 3) Certain authors use the term SDM inconsistently with the definition they propose, and some use the terms informed decision making and SDM as if they were synonymous. 4) Twenty-one papers do not provide or cite any definition, or their use of the term (i.e., SDM) is not consistent with the definition they provide. Although several clear definitions of shared decision making have been proposed, they are cited by only about a third of the papers reviewed. In the other papers, authors refer to the term without specifying or citing a definition or use the term inconsistently with their definition. This is a problem because having a clear definition of the concept and following this definition are essential to guide and focus research. Authors should use the term consistently with the identified definition.

Models based on value and probability in health improve shared decision making.

PubMed

Ortendahl, Monica

2008-10-01

Diagnostic reasoning and treatment decisions are a key competence of doctors. A model based on values and probability provides a conceptual framework for clinical judgments and decisions, and also facilitates the integration of clinical and biomedical knowledge into a diagnostic decision. Both value and probability are usually estimated values in clinical decision making. Therefore, model assumptions and parameter estimates should be continually assessed against data, and models should be revised accordingly. Introducing parameter estimates for both value and probability, which usually pertain in clinical work, gives the model labelled subjective expected utility. Estimated values and probabilities are involved sequentially for every step in the decision-making process. Introducing decision-analytic modelling gives a more complete picture of variables that influence the decisions carried out by the doctor and the patient. A model revised for perceived values and probabilities by both the doctor and the patient could be used as a tool for engaging in a mutual and shared decision-making process in clinical work.

Moving towards shared decision making in the physician-patient encounter in France: State of the art and future prospects.

PubMed

Moumjid, Nora; Carretier, Julien; Marsico, Giovanna; Blot, François; Durif-Bruckert, Christine; Chauvin, Franck

2017-06-01

In this paper we present the evolution of shared decision making since the mid-nineties in terms of legislation, official statements and guidelines. We outline the goals and declarations of the French Ministry of Health and the French National Authority for Health, for whom informing patients and shared decision-making are central concerns. Finally, we discuss research projects and clinical initiatives in shared decision-making in France and provide a general overview of progress and barriers to progress. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Perspectives on Cybersecurity Information Sharing among Multiple Stakeholders Using a Decision-Theoretic Approach.

PubMed

He, Meilin; Devine, Laura; Zhuang, Jun

2018-02-01

The government, private sectors, and others users of the Internet are increasingly faced with the risk of cyber incidents. Damage to computer systems and theft of sensitive data caused by cyber attacks have the potential to result in lasting harm to entities under attack, or to society as a whole. The effects of cyber attacks are not always obvious, and detecting them is not a simple proposition. As the U.S. federal government believes that information sharing on cybersecurity issues among organizations is essential to safety, security, and resilience, the importance of trusted information exchange has been emphasized to support public and private decision making by encouraging the creation of the Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC). Through a decision-theoretic approach, this article provides new perspectives on ISAC, and the advent of the new Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations (ISAOs), which are intended to provide similar benefits to organizations that cannot fit easily into the ISAC structure. To help understand the processes of information sharing against cyber threats, this article illustrates 15 representative information sharing structures between ISAC, government, and other participating entities, and provide discussions on the strategic interactions between different stakeholders. This article also identifies the costs of information sharing and information security borne by different parties in this public-private partnership both before and after cyber attacks, as well as the two main benefits. This article provides perspectives on the mechanism of information sharing and some detailed cost-benefit analysis. © 2017 Society for Risk Analysis.

InformedTogether: Usability Evaluation of a Web-Based Decision Aid to Facilitate Shared Advance Care Planning for Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

PubMed Central

Uhler, Lauren M; Pérez Figueroa, Rafael E; Dickson, Mark; McCullagh, Lauren; Kushniruk, Andre; Monkman, Helen; Witteman, Holly O

2015-01-01

Background Advance care planning may help patients receive treatments that better align with their goals for care. We developed a Web-based decision aid called InformedTogether to facilitate shared advance care planning between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and their doctors. Objective Our objective was to assess the usability of the InformedTogether decision aid, including whether users could interact with the decision aid to engage in tasks required for shared decision making, whether users found the decision aid acceptable, and implications for redesign. Methods We conducted an observational study with 15 patients and 8 doctors at two ethnically and socioeconomically diverse outpatient clinics. Data included quantitative and qualitative observations of patients and doctors using the decision aid on tablet or laptop computers and data from semistructured interviews. Patients were shown the decision aid by a researcher acting as the doctor. Pulmonary doctors were observed using the decision aid independently and asked to think aloud (ie, verbalize their thoughts). A thematic analysis was implemented to explore key issues related to decision aid usability. Results Although patients and doctors found InformedTogether acceptable and would recommend that doctors use the decision aid with COPD patients, many patients had difficulty understanding the icon arrays that were used to communicate estimated prognoses and could not articulate the definitions of the two treatment choices—Full Code and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Minor usability problems regarding content, links, layout, and consistency were also identified and corresponding recommendations were outlined. In particular, participants suggested including more information about potential changes in quality of life resulting from the alternative advance directives. Some doctor participants thought the decision aid was too long and some thought it may cause nervousness among patients due to

Knowing Better: Improving Collective Decision Making in Higher Education Shared Governance

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Manick, Christopher J. D.

2016-01-01

This dissertation addresses the question: Should higher education governance and decision-making be an elite or collective responsibility? It brings into conversation (i) the debate over the future of shared (i.e. participatory, faculty) governance in higher education, and (ii) research in democratic theory, specifically the epistemic defense of…

Perceptions of Shared Decision Making Among Patients with Spinal Cord Injuries/Disorders.

PubMed

Locatelli, Sara M; Etingen, Bella; Heinemann, Allen; Neumann, Holly DeMark; Miskovic, Ana; Chen, David; LaVela, Sherri L

2016-01-01

Background: Individuals with spinal cord injuries/disorders (SCI/D) are interested in, and benefit from, shared decision making (SDM). Objective: To explore SDM among individuals with SCI/D and how demographics and health and SCI/D characteristics are related to SDM. Method: Individuals with SCI/D who were at least 1 year post injury, resided in the Chicago metropolitan area, and received SCI care at a Veterans Affairs (VA; n = 124) or an SCI Model Systems facility ( n = 326) completed a mailed survey measuring demographics, health and SCI/D characteristics, physical and mental health status, and perceptions of care, including SDM, using the Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication and Treatment Decision-Making Effectiveness (COMRADE) that assesses decision-making effectiveness (effectiveness) and risk communication (communication). Bivariate analyses and multiple linear regression were used to identify variables associated with SDM. Results: Participants were mostly male (83%) and White (70%) and were an average age of 54 years ( SD = 14.3). Most had traumatic etiology, 44% paraplegia, and 49% complete injury. Veteran/civilian status and demographics were unrelated to scores. Bivariate analyses showed that individuals with tetraplegia had better effectiveness scores than those with paraplegia. Better effectiveness was correlated with better physical and mental health; better communication was correlated with better mental health. Multiple linear regressions showed that tetraplegia, better physical health, and better mental health were associated with better effectiveness, and better mental health was associated with better communication. Conclusion: SCI/D and health characteristics were the only variables associated with SDM. Interventions to increase engagement in SDM and provider attention to SDM may be beneficial, especially for individuals with paraplegia or in poorer physical and mental health.

Trouble in Paradise: Teacher Conflicts in Shared Decision Making. NCEL Occasional Paper No. 8.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Weiss, Carol H.; And Others

Drawing on interviews with 180 staff members from 45 public high schools in 15 states, this document examines the advantages and disadvantages of teacher participation in shared decision making. The settings of six high schools that had structured mechanisms for teacher participation in school decisions are described, and problems that emerged…

[Shared decision-making and communication theory: grounding the tango].

PubMed

Kasper, Jürgen; Légaré, France; Scheibler, Fülöp; Geiger, Friedemann

2010-01-01

Shared decision-making (SDM) has the potential to overcome outdated social role models in the health care system. The concept, however, adheres to archaic epistemological assumptions as can be inferred from the rudimentary stage of the measurement methods used and from the information monopoly that the physician still holds in this concept. Advantages of an up-to-date model of knowledge for understanding and operationalising SDM are outlined. To this purpose, essential definitions of the concept are reflected in terms of epistemology. Accordingly, information emerges through a process of social construction. Likewise, interpersonal relations do not represent a static condition; rather, they develop anew with each interaction. Therefore, constructs suitable to focus on dyadic interaction processes can be used as indicators of sharing in SDM. Theories and methods of the interpersonal paradigm are advocated. Copyright © 2010. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Evidence Based Medicine and Shared Decision Making: the challenge of getting both evidence and preferences into health care.

PubMed

Barratt, Alexandra

2008-12-01

Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) and Shared Medical Decision Making (SDM) are changing the nature of health care decisions. It is broadly accepted that health care decisions require the integration of research evidence and individual preferences. These approaches are justified on both efficacy grounds (that evidence based practice and Shared Decision Making should lead to better health outcomes and may lead to a more cost-effective use of health care resources) and ethical grounds (patients' autonomy should be respected in health care). However, despite endorsement by physicians and consumers of these approaches, implementation remains limited in practice, particularly outside academic and tertiary health care centres. There are practical problems of implementation, which include training, access to research, and development of and access to tools to display evidence and support decision making. There may also be philosophical difficulties, and some have even suggested that the two approaches (evidence based practice and Shared Decision Making) are fundamentally incompatible. This paper look at the achievements of EBM and SDM so far, the potential tensions between them, and how things might progress in the future.

Patient Preferences and Shared Decision Making in the Treatment of Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review of the Literature

PubMed Central

Friedrichs, Anke; Spies, Maren; Härter, Martin; Buchholz, Angela

2016-01-01

Background Shared Decision Making (SDM) as means to the involvement of patients in medical decision making is increasingly demanded by treatment guidelines and legislation. Also, matching of patients’ preferences to treatments has been shown to be effective regarding symptom reduction. Despite promising results for patients with substance use disorders (SUD) no systematic evaluation of the literature has been provided. The aim is therefore to give a systematic overview of the literature of patient preferences and SDM in the treatment of patients with SUD. Methods An electronic literature search of the databases Medline, Embase, Psyndex and Clinical Trials Register was performed. Variations of the search terms substance use disorders, patient preferences and SDM were used. For data synthesis the populations, interventions and outcomes were summarized and described according to the PRISMA statement. Methodological quality of the included articles was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results N = 25 trials were included in this review. These were conducted between 1986 and 2014 with altogether n = 8.729 patients. Two studies found that patients with SUD preferred to be actively involved in treatment decisions. Treatment preferences were assessed in n = 18 studies, where the majority of patients preferred outpatient compared with inpatient treatment. Matching patients to preferences resulted in a reduction on substance use (n = 3 studies), but the majority of studies found no significant effect. Interventions for SDM differed across patient populations and optional therapeutic techniques. Discussion Patients with substance use disorders should be involved in medical treatment decisions, as patients with other health conditions. A suitable approach is Shared Decision Making, emphasizing the patients’ preferences. However, due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, results should be interpreted with caution. Further research is needed regarding

Race, ethnicity, and shared decision making for hyperlipidemia and hypertension treatment: the DECISIONS survey.

PubMed

Ratanawongsa, Neda; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J; Couper, Mick P; Van Hoewyk, John; Powe, Neil R

2010-01-01

Racial/ethnic differences in shared decision making about cardiovascular risk-reduction therapy could affect health disparities. To investigate whether patient race/ethnicity is associated with experiences discussing cardiovascular risk-reduction therapy with health care providers. National sample of US adults identified by random-digit dialing. Cross-sectional survey conducted in November 2006 to May 2007. Among participants in the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS), a nationally representative sample of English-speaking US adults aged 40 and older, the authors analyzed respondents who reported discussing hyperlipidemia or hypertension medications with a health care provider in the previous 2 years. In multivariate linear and logistic regressions adjusting for age, gender, income, insurance status, perceived health, and current therapy, they assessed the relation between race/ethnicity (black/Hispanic v. white) and decision making: knowledge, discussion of pros and cons of therapy, discussion of patient preference, who made the final decision, preferred involvement, and confidence in the decision. Of respondents who discussed high cholesterol (N = 738) or hypertension (N = 745) medications, 88% were white, 9% black, and 4% Hispanic. Minorities had lower knowledge scores than whites for hyperlipidemia (42% v. 52%, difference -10% [95% confidence interval (CI): 15, -5], P < 0.001), but not for hypertension. For hyperlipidemia, minorities were more likely than whites to report that the health care provider made the final decision for treatment (31.7% v. 12.3% whites, difference 19.4% [95% CI: 6.9, 33.1%], P < 0.01); this was not true for hypertension. Possible limitations include the small percentage of minorities in the sample and potential recall bias. Minorities considering hyperlipidemia therapy may be less informed about and less involved in the final decision-making process.

Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care

PubMed Central

Slade, Mike

2017-01-01

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non‐maleficence. It is argued that SDM is “polyvalent”, a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high‐quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery‐supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes – social marketing and the hospitality industry – are identified. PMID:28498575

Surgical Consultation as Social Process: Implications for Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Clapp, Justin T; Arriaga, Alexander F; Murthy, Sushila; Raper, Steven E; Schwartz, J Sanford; Barg, Frances K; Fleisher, Lee A

2017-12-12

This qualitative study examines surgical consultation as a social process and assesses its alignment with assumptions of the shared decision-making (SDM) model. SDM stresses the importance of patient preferences and rigorous discussion of therapeutic risks/benefits based on these preferences. However, empirical studies have highlighted discrepancies between SDM and realities of surgical decision making. Qualitative research can inform understanding of the decision-making process and allow for granular assessment of the nature and causes of these discrepancies. We observed consultations between 3 general surgeons and 45 patients considering undergoing 1 of 2 preference-sensitive elective operations: (1) hernia repair, or (2) cholecystectomy. These patients and surgeons also participated in semi-structured interviews. By the time of the consultation, patients and surgeons were predisposed toward certain decisions by preceding events occurring elsewhere. During the visit, surgeons had differential ability to arbitrate surgical intervention and construct the severity of patients' conditions. These upstream dynamics frequently displaced the centrality of the risk/benefit-based consent discussion. The influence of events preceding consultation suggests that decision-making models should account for broader spatiotemporal spans. Given surgeons' authority to define patients' conditions and control service provision, SDM may be premised on an overestimation of patients' power to alter the course of decision making once in a specialist's office. Considering the subordinate role of the risk/benefit discussion in many surgical decisions, it will be important to study if and how the social process of decision making is altered by SDM-oriented decision aids that foreground this discussion.

75 FR 17763 - National Park Service Benefits-Sharing Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-04-07

... DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Park Service Benefits-Sharing Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision AGENCY: National Park Service, Department of the Interior.... 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of the Record of Decision for the...

Strategies to facilitate shared decision-making about pediatric oncology clinical trial enrollment: A systematic review.

PubMed

Robertson, Eden G; Wakefield, Claire E; Signorelli, Christina; Cohn, Richard J; Patenaude, Andrea; Foster, Claire; Pettit, Tristan; Fardell, Joanna E

2018-07-01

We conducted a systematic review to identify the strategies that have been recommended in the literature to facilitate shared decision-making regarding enrolment in pediatric oncology clinical trials. We searched seven databases for peer-reviewed literature, published 1990-2017. Of 924 articles identified, 17 studies were eligible for the review. We assessed study quality using the 'Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool'. We coded the results and discussions of papers line-by-line using nVivo software. We categorized strategies thematically. Five main themes emerged: 1) decision-making as a process, 2) individuality of the process; 3) information provision, 4) the role of communication, or 5) decision and psychosocial support. Families should have adequate time to make a decision. HCPs should elicit parents' and patients' preferences for level of information and decision involvement. Information should be clear and provided in multiple modalities. Articles also recommended providing training for healthcare professionals and access to psychosocial support for families. High quality, individually-tailored information, open communication and psychosocial support appear vital in supporting decision-making regarding enrollment in clinical trials. These data will usefully inform future decision-making interventions/tools to support families making clinical trial decisions. A solid evidence-base for effective strategies which facilitate shared decision-making is needed. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

[Early detection in prostate cancer and shared decision making].

PubMed

Junod, A F

2005-09-28

Screening of prostate cancer with PSA is a challenge for the aid to decision. Beside the rather mediocre characteristics of the screening test, there the additional problem of the peculiar biology of this cancer, with its late development and its ability to remain latent for a prolonged period. On the other hand, the treatment (surgery, irradiation) is associated with important side-effects: impotence and urinary leakage. Several studies, which appear to be a form of aid to information than aid to shared decision, have been carried out to analyse the effect of various modes of information on the behaviour of potential candidates to screening of prostate cancer, with the following results: better knowledge of the problem, lower rate of acceptance of PSA testing and trend towards watchful waiting rather than surgery in case of discovery of cancer.

Translating Evidence to Facilitate Shared Decision Making: Development and Usability of a Consult Decision Aid Prototype.

PubMed

Stacey, Dawn; Légaré, France; Lyddiatt, Anne; Giguere, Anik M C; Yoganathan, Manosila; Saarimaki, Anton; Pardo, Jordi Pardo; Rader, Tamara; Tugwell, Peter

2016-12-01

The purpose of this study was to translate evidence from Cochrane Reviews into a format that can be used to facilitate shared decision making during the consultation, namely patient decision aids. A systematic development process (a) established a stakeholder committee; (b) developed a prototype according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards; (c) applied the prototype to a Cochrane Review and used an interview-guided survey to evaluate acceptability/usability; (d) created 12 consult decision aids; and (e) used a Delphi process to reach consensus on considerations for creating a consult decision aid. The 1-page prototype includes (a) a title specifying the decision; (b) information on the health condition, options, benefits/harms with probabilities; (c) an explicit values clarification exercise; and (d) questions to screen for decisional conflict. Hyperlinks provide additional information on definitions, probabilities presented graphically, and references. Fourteen Cochrane Consumer Network members and Cochrane Editorial Unit staff participated. Thirteen reported that it would help patient/clinician discussions and were willing to use and/or recommend it. Seven indicated the right amount of information, six not enough, and one too much. Changes to the prototype were more links to definitions, more white space, and details on GRADE evidence ratings. Creating 12 consult decision aids took about 4 h each. We identified ten considerations when selecting Cochrane Reviews for creating consult decision aids. Using a systematic process, we developed a consult decision aid prototype to be populated with evidence from Cochrane Reviews. It was acceptable and easy to apply. Future studies will evaluate implementation of consult decision aids.

Physicians' Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in Chronic Disease and Its Barriers and Facilitators.

PubMed

Dodds, Cassandra M; Britto, Maria T; Denson, Lee A; Lovell, Daniel J; Saeed, Shehzad; Lipstein, Ellen A

2016-04-01

This study assessed pediatric physicians' use of shared decision making (SDM) in 2 chronic conditions. Most physicians indicated that parent and adolescent trust and emotional readiness facilitated SDM, physicians' preferred approach to decision making. At the same time, they perceived few barriers, other than insurance limitations, to using SDM. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Psychiatric service staff perceptions of implementing a shared decision-making tool: a process evaluation study

PubMed Central

Schön, Ulla-Karin; Grim, Katarina; Wallin, Lars; Rosenberg, David; Svedberg, Petra

2018-01-01

ABSTRACT Purpose: Shared decision making, SDM, in psychiatric services, supports users to experience a greater sense of involvement in treatment, self-efficacy, autonomy and reduced coercion. Decision tools adapted to the needs of users have the potential to support SDM and restructure how users and staff work together to arrive at shared decisions. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse the implementation process of an SDM intervention for users of psychiatric services in Sweden. Method: The implementation was studied through a process evaluation utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods. In designing the process evaluation for the intervention, three evaluation components were emphasized: contextual factors, implementation issues and mechanisms of impact. Results: The study addresses critical implementation issues related to decision-making authority, the perceived decision-making ability of users and the readiness of the service to increase influence and participation. It also emphasizes the importance of facilitation, as well as suggesting contextual adaptations that may be relevant for the local organizations. Conclusion: The results indicate that staff perceived the decision support tool as user-friendly and useful in supporting participation in decision-making, and suggest that such concrete supports to participation can be a factor in implementation if adequate attention is paid to organizational contexts and structures. PMID:29405889

Psychiatric service staff perceptions of implementing a shared decision-making tool: a process evaluation study.

PubMed

Schön, Ulla-Karin; Grim, Katarina; Wallin, Lars; Rosenberg, David; Svedberg, Petra

2018-12-01

Shared decision making, SDM, in psychiatric services, supports users to experience a greater sense of involvement in treatment, self-efficacy, autonomy and reduced coercion. Decision tools adapted to the needs of users have the potential to support SDM and restructure how users and staff work together to arrive at shared decisions. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse the implementation process of an SDM intervention for users of psychiatric services in Sweden. The implementation was studied through a process evaluation utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods. In designing the process evaluation for the intervention, three evaluation components were emphasized: contextual factors, implementation issues and mechanisms of impact. The study addresses critical implementation issues related to decision-making authority, the perceived decision-making ability of users and the readiness of the service to increase influence and participation. It also emphasizes the importance of facilitation, as well as suggesting contextual adaptations that may be relevant for the local organizations. The results indicate that staff perceived the decision support tool as user-friendly and useful in supporting participation in decision-making, and suggest that such concrete supports to participation can be a factor in implementation if adequate attention is paid to organizational contexts and structures.

The use of video-based patient education for shared decision-making in the treatment of prostate cancer.

PubMed

Gomella, L G; Albertsen, P C; Benson, M C; Forman, J D; Soloway, M S

2000-08-01

Increased consumerism, patient empowerment, and autonomy are creating a health care revolution. In recent years, the public has become better informed and more sophisticated. An extraordinary amount of treatment advice from books, the media, and the Internet is available to patients today, although much of it is confusing or conflicting. Consequently, the traditional, paternalistic doctor-patient relationship is yielding to a more consumerist one. The new dynamic is based on a participatory ethic and a change in the balance of power. This shared decision-making creates a true partnership between professionals and patients, in which each contributes equally to decisions about treatment or care. Evidence suggests that in diseases such as prostate cancer, where there may be a number of appropriate treatment options for a particular patient, shared decision-making may lead to improved clinical and quality-of-life outcomes. This article explores the evolving relationship between the physician and patient, the pros and cons of shared decision-making, and the use of video technology in the clinical setting. The authors review the use of medical decision aids, including a video-based educational program called CHOICES, in the treatment of prostate cancer and other diseases.

Predictors of Shared Decision Making and Level of Agreement between Consumers and Providers in Psychiatric Care

PubMed Central

Fukui, Sadaaki; Salyers, Michelle P.; Matthias, Marianne S.; Collins, Linda; Thompson, John; Coffman, Melinda; Torrey, William C.

2014-01-01

The purpose of this study was to quantitatively examine elements of shared decision making (SDM), and to establish empirical evidence for factors correlated with SDM and the level of agreement between consumer and provider in psychiatric care. Transcripts containing 128 audio-recorded medication check-up visits with eight providers at three community mental health centers were rated using the Shared Decision Making scale, adapted from Braddock’s Informed Decision Making Scale (Braddock et al., 1997; 1999; 2008). Multilevel regression analyses revealed that greater consumer activity in the session and greater decision complexity significantly predicted the SDM score. The best predictor of agreement between consumer and provider was “exploration of consumer preference,” with a four-fold increase in full agreement when consumer preferences were discussed more completely. Enhancing active consumer participation, particularly by incorporating consumer preferences in the decision making process appears to be an important factor in SDM. PMID:23299226

Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making: a participant-level meta-analysis.

PubMed

Wyatt, Kirk D; Branda, Megan E; Inselman, Jonathan W; Ting, Henry H; Hess, Erik P; Montori, Victor M; LeBlanc, Annie

2014-09-02

Gender differences in communication styles between clinicians and patients have been postulated to impact patient care, but the extent to which the gender dyad structure impacts outcomes in shared decision making remains unclear. Participant-level meta-analysis of 775 clinical encounters within 7 randomized trials where decision aids, shared decision making tools, were used at the point of care. Outcomes analysed include decisional conflict scale scores, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, concordance between stated decision and action taken, and degree of patient engagement by the clinician using the OPTION scale. An estimated minimal important difference was used to determine if nonsignificant results could be explained by low power. We did not find a statistically significant interaction between clinician/patient gender mix and arm for decisional conflict, satisfaction with the clinical encounter or patient engagement. A borderline significant interaction (p = 0.05) was observed for one outcome: concordance between stated decision and action taken, where encounters with female clinician/male patient showed increased concordance in the decision aid arm compared to control (8% more concordant encounters). All other gender dyads showed decreased concordance with decision aid use (6% fewer concordant encounters for same-gender, 16% fewer concordant encounters for male clinician/female patient). In this participant-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, decision aids used at the point of care demonstrated comparable efficacy across gender dyads. Purported barriers to shared decision making based on gender were not detected when tested for a minimum detected difference. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00888537, NCT01077037, NCT01029288, NCT00388050, NCT00578981, NCT00949611, NCT00217061.

To Share or Not to Share: Malaysian Healthcare Professionals' Views on Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Decision Making Roles.

PubMed

Lee, Yew Kong; Lee, Ping Yein; Cheong, Ai Theng; Ng, Chirk Jenn; Abdullah, Khatijah Lim; Ong, Teng Aik; Razack, Azad Hassan Abdul

2015-01-01

To explore the views of Malaysian healthcare professionals (HCPs) on stakeholders' decision making roles in localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. Qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted with HCPs treating PCa. Data was analysed using a thematic approach. Four in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted between December 2012 and March 2013 using a topic guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. The participants comprised private urologists (n = 4), government urologists (n = 6), urology trainees (n = 6), government policy maker (n = 1) and oncologists (n = 3). HCP perceptions of the roles of the three parties involved (HCPs, patients, family) included: HCP as the main decision maker, HCP as a guide to patients' decision making, HCP as a facilitator to family involvement, patients as main decision maker and patient prefers HCP to decide. HCPs preferred to share the decision with patients due to equipoise between prostate treatment options. Family culture was important as family members often decided on the patient's treatment due to Malaysia's close-knit family culture. A range of decision making roles were reported by HCPs. It is thus important that stakeholder roles are clarified during PCa treatment decisions. HCPs need to cultivate an awareness of sociocultural norms and family dynamics when supporting non-Western patients in making decisions about PCa.

To Share or Not to Share: Malaysian Healthcare Professionals' Views on Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Decision Making Roles

PubMed Central

Lee, Yew Kong; Lee, Ping Yein; Cheong, Ai Theng; Ng, Chirk Jenn; Abdullah, Khatijah Lim; Ong, Teng Aik; Razack, Azad Hassan Abdul

2015-01-01

Aim To explore the views of Malaysian healthcare professionals (HCPs) on stakeholders’ decision making roles in localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. Methods Qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted with HCPs treating PCa. Data was analysed using a thematic approach. Four in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted between December 2012 and March 2013 using a topic guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. Findings The participants comprised private urologists (n = 4), government urologists (n = 6), urology trainees (n = 6), government policy maker (n = 1) and oncologists (n = 3). HCP perceptions of the roles of the three parties involved (HCPs, patients, family) included: HCP as the main decision maker, HCP as a guide to patients’ decision making, HCP as a facilitator to family involvement, patients as main decision maker and patient prefers HCP to decide. HCPs preferred to share the decision with patients due to equipoise between prostate treatment options. Family culture was important as family members often decided on the patient’s treatment due to Malaysia’s close-knit family culture. Conclusions A range of decision making roles were reported by HCPs. It is thus important that stakeholder roles are clarified during PCa treatment decisions. HCPs need to cultivate an awareness of sociocultural norms and family dynamics when supporting non-Western patients in making decisions about PCa. PMID:26559947

Patients' perception of their involvement in shared treatment decision making: Key factors in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

PubMed

Veilleux, Sophie; Noiseux, Isabelle; Lachapelle, Nathalie; Kohen, Rita; Vachon, Luc; Guay, Brian White; Bitton, Alain; Rioux, John D

2018-02-01

This study aims to characterize the relationships between the quality of the information given by the physician, the involvement of the patient in shared decision making (SDM), and outcomes in terms of satisfaction and anxiety pertaining to the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A Web survey was conducted among 200 Canadian patients affected with IBD. The theoretical model of SDM was adjusted using path analysis. SAS software was used for all statistical analyses. The quality of the knowledge transfer between the physician and the patient is significantly associated with the components of SDM: information comprehension, patient involvement and decision certainty about the chosen treatment. In return, patient involvement in SDM is significantly associated with higher satisfaction and, as a result, lower anxiety as regards treatment selection. This study demonstrates the importance of involving patients in shared treatment decision making in the context of IBD. Understanding shared decision making may motivate patients to be more active in understanding the relevant information for treatment selection, as it is related to their level of satisfaction, anxiety and adherence to treatment. This relationship should encourage physicians to promote shared decision making. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

How do patients from eastern and western Germany compare with regard to their preferences for shared decision making?

PubMed

Hamann, Johannes; Bieber, Christiane; Elwyn, Glyn; Wartner, Eva; Hörlein, Elisabeth; Kissling, Werner; Toegel, Christfried; Berth, Hendrik; Linde, Klaus; Schneider, Antonius

2012-08-01

Increasing emphasis is being placed on involving patients in decisions concerning their health. This shift towards more patient engagement by health professionals and towards more desire by patients for participation may be partly based on socio-political factors. To compare the preferences for shared decision making of patients from eastern and western Germany we analysed five patient samples (n = 2318) (general practice patients and schizophrenia patients from eastern and western Germany). Patients' role preferences for shared decisions were measured using the decision-making subscale of the Autonomy Preference Index. Patients resident in eastern Germany expressed lower preferences for shared decision making than patients in western Germany. This was true after controlling for socio-demographic variables and for patient group. The cultural imprint (e.g. western vs. former communist society) seems to have a significant influence on patients' expectations and behaviour in the medical encounter. Health services providers need to be aware that health attitudes within the same health system might vary for historical and cultural reasons. The engagement of patients in medical decisions might not be susceptible to a 'one size fits all' approach; doctors should instead aim to accommodate the individual patient's desire for autonomy.

Preferences for Shared Decision Making in Older Adult Patients With Orthopedic Hand Conditions.

PubMed

Dardas, Agnes Z; Stockburger, Christopher; Boone, Sean; An, Tonya; Calfee, Ryan P

2016-10-01

The practice of medicine is shifting from a paternalistic doctor-patient relationship to a model in which the doctor and patient collaborate to decide optimal treatment. This study aims to determine whether the older orthopedic population desires a shared decision-making approach to care and to identify patient predictors for the preferred type of approach. This cross-sectional investigation enrolled 99 patients, minimum age 65 years, at a tertiary hand specialty practice between March and June 2015. All patients completed the Control Preferences Scale, a validated system that distinguishes among patient preferences for patient-directed, collaborative, or physician-directed decision making. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses assessed associations among demographic data; clinic encounter variables such as familiarity with provider, trauma, diagnosis, and treatment decision; and the primary outcome of Control Preferences Scale preferences. A total of 81% of patients analyzed preferred a more patient-directed role in decision making; 46% of the total cohort cited a collaborative approach as their most preferred treatment approach. Sixty-seven percent cited the most physician-directed approach as their least preferred model of decision making. In addition, 49% reported that spending more time with their physician to address questions and explain the diagnosis would be most useful when making a health care decision and 73% preferred additional written informational material. Familiarity with the provider was associated with being more likely to prefer a collaborative approach. Older adult patients with symptomatic upper-extremity conditions desire more patient-directed roles in treatment decision making. Given the limited amount of reliable information obtained independently outside the office visit, our data suggest that written decision aids offer an approach to shared decision making that is most consistent with the preferences of the older orthopedic patient

Shared Decisions That Count.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Schlechty, Phillip C.

1993-01-01

Advocates of participatory leadership, site-based management, and decentralization often assume that changing decision-making group composition will automatically improve the quality of decisions being made. Stakeholder satisfaction does not guarantee quality results. This article offers a framework for moving the decision-making discussion from…

Patient-Centered Imaging: Shared Decision Making for Cardiac Imaging Procedures with Exposure to Ionizing Radiation

PubMed Central

Einstein, Andrew J.; Berman, Daniel S.; Min, James K.; Hendel, Robert C.; Gerber, Thomas C.; Carr, J. Jeffrey; Cerqueira, Manuel D.; Cullom, S. James; DeKemp, Robert; Dickert, Neal; Dorbala, Sharmila; Garcia, Ernest V.; Gibbons, Raymond J.; Halliburton, Sandra S.; Hausleiter, Jörg; Heller, Gary V.; Jerome, Scott; Lesser, John R.; Fazel, Reza; Raff, Gilbert L.; Tilkemeier, Peter; Williams, Kim A.; Shaw, Leslee J.

2014-01-01

Objective To identify key components of a radiation accountability framework fostering patient-centered imaging and shared decision-making in cardiac imaging. Background An NIH-NHLBI/NCI-sponsored symposium was held in November 2012 to address these issues. Methods Symposium participants, working in three tracks, identified key components of a framework to target critical radiation safety issues for the patient, the laboratory, and the larger population of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Results Use of ionizing radiation during an imaging procedure should be disclosed to all patients by the ordering provider at the time of ordering, and reinforced by the performing provider team. An imaging protocol with effective dose ≤3mSv is considered very low risk, not warranting extensive discussion or written consent. However, a protocol effective dose <20mSv was proposed as a level requiring particular attention in terms of shared decision-making and either formal discussion or written informed consent. Laboratory reporting of radiation dosimetry is a critical component of creating a quality laboratory fostering a patient-centered environment with transparent procedural methodology. Efforts should be directed to avoiding testing involving radiation, in patients with inappropriate indications. Standardized reporting and diagnostic reference levels for computed tomography and nuclear cardiology are important for the goal of public reporting of laboratory radiation dose levels in conjunction with diagnostic performance. Conclusions The development of cardiac imaging technologies revolutionized cardiology practice by allowing routine, noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion and anatomy. It is now incumbent upon the imaging community to create an accountability framework to safely drive appropriate imaging utilization. PMID:24530677

Breast Conservation Therapy Versus Mastectomy: Shared Decision-Making Strategies and Overcoming Decisional Conflicts in Your Patients.

PubMed

Margenthaler, Julie A; Ollila, David W

2016-10-01

Although breast-conserving therapy is considered the preferred treatment for the majority of women with early-stage breast cancer, mastectomy rates in this group remain high. The patient, physician, and systems factors contributing to a decision for mastectomy are complicated. Understanding the individual patient's values and goals when making this decision is paramount to providing a shared decision-making process that will yield the desired outcome. The cornerstones of this discussion include education of the patient, access to decision-aid tools, and time to make an informed decision. However, it is also paramount for the physician to understand that a significant majority of women with an informed and complete understanding of their surgical choices will still prefer mastectomy. The rates of breast conservation versus mastectomy should not be considered a quality measure alone. Rather, the extent by which patients are informed, involved in decision-making, and undergoing treatments that reflect their goals is the true test of quality. Here we explore some of the factors that impact the patient preference for breast conservation versus mastectomy and how shared decision-making can be maximized for patient satisfaction.

A legal framework to enable sharing of Clinical Decision Support knowledge and services across institutional boundaries.

PubMed

Hongsermeier, Tonya; Maviglia, Saverio; Tsurikova, Lana; Bogaty, Dan; Rocha, Roberto A; Goldberg, Howard; Meltzer, Seth; Middleton, Blackford

2011-01-01

The goal of the CDS Consortium (CDSC) is to assess, define, demonstrate, and evaluate best practices for knowledge management and clinical decision support in healthcare information technology at scale - across multiple ambulatory care settings and Electronic Health Record technology platforms. In the course of the CDSC research effort, it became evident that a sound legal foundation was required for knowledge sharing and clinical decision support services in order to address data sharing, intellectual property, accountability, and liability concerns. This paper outlines the framework utilized for developing agreements in support of sharing, accessing, and publishing content via the CDSC Knowledge Management Portal as well as an agreement in support of deployment and consumption of CDSC developed web services in the context of a research project under IRB oversight.

Shared decision making in the safety net: where do we go from here?

PubMed

Bouma, Angelique B; Tiedje, Kristina; Poplau, Sara; Boehm, Deborah H; Shah, Nilay D; Commers, Matthew J; Linzer, Mark; Montori, Victor M

2014-01-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is an interactive process between clinicians and patients in which both share information, deliberate together, and make clinical decisions. Clinics serving safety net patients face special challenges, including fewer resources and more challenging work environments. The use of SDM within safety net institutions has not been well studied. We recruited a convenience sample of 15 safety net primary care clinicians (13 physicians, 2 nurse practitioners). Each answered a 9-item SDM questionnaire and participated in a semistructured interview. From the transcribed interviews and questionnaire data, we identified themes and suggestions for introducing SDM into a safety net environment. Clinicians reported only partially fulfilling the central components of SDM (sharing information, deliberating, and decision making). Most clinicians expressed interest in SDM by stating that they "selected a treatment option together" with patients (8 of 15 in strong or complete agreement), but only a minority (3 of 15) "thoroughly weighed the different treatment options" together with patients. Clinicians attributed this gap to many barriers, including time pressure, overwhelming visit content, patient preferences, and lack of available resources. All clinicians believed that lack of time made it difficult to practice SDM. To increase use of SDM in the safety net, efficient SDM interventions designed for this environment, team care, and patient engagement in SDM will need further development. Future studies should focus on adapting SDM to safety net settings and determine whether SDM can reduce health care disparities.

The impact of decision aids to enhance shared decision making for diabetes (the DAD study): protocol of a cluster randomized trial.

PubMed

LeBlanc, Annie; Ruud, Kari L; Branda, Megan E; Tiedje, Kristina; Boehmer, Kasey R; Pencille, Laurie J; Van Houten, Holly; Matthews, Marc; Shah, Nilay D; May, Carl R; Yawn, Barbara P; Montori, Victor M

2012-05-28

Shared decision making contributes to high quality healthcare by promoting a patient-centered approach. Patient involvement in selecting the components of a diabetes medication program that best match the patient's values and preferences may also enhance medication adherence and improve outcomes. Decision aids are tools designed to involve patients in shared decision making, but their adoption in practice has been limited. In this study, we propose to obtain a preliminary estimate of the impact of patient decision aids vs. usual care on measures of patient involvement in decision making, diabetes care processes, medication adherence, glycemic and cardiovascular risk factor control, and resource utilization. In addition, we propose to identify, describe, and explain factors that promote or inhibit the routine embedding of decision aids in practice. We will be conducting a mixed-methods study comprised of a cluster-randomized, practical, multicentered trial enrolling clinicians and their patients (n = 240) with type 2 diabetes from rural and suburban primary care practices (n = 8), with an embedded qualitative study to examine factors that influence the incorporation of decision aids into routine practice. The intervention will consist of the use of a decision aid (Statin Choice and Aspirin Choice, or Diabetes Medication Choice) during the clinical encounter. The qualitative study will include analysis of video recordings of clinical encounters and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with participating patients, clinicians, and clinic support staff, in both trial arms. Upon completion of this trial, we will have new knowledge about the effectiveness of diabetes decision aids in these practices. We will also better understand the factors that promote or inhibit the successful implementation and normalization of medication choice decision aids in the care of chronic patients in primary care practices. NCT00388050.

Influence of English proficiency on patient-provider communication and shared decision-making.

PubMed

Paredes, Anghela Z; Idrees, Jay J; Beal, Eliza W; Chen, Qinyu; Cerier, Emily; Okunrintemi, Victor; Olsen, Griffin; Sun, Steven; Cloyd, Jordan M; Pawlik, Timothy M

2018-06-01

The number of patients in the United States (US) who speak a language other than English is increasing. We evaluated the impact of English proficiency on self-reported patient-provider communication and shared decision-making. The 2013-2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey database was utilized to identify respondents who spoke a language other than English. Patient-provider communication (PPC) and shared decision-making (SDM) scores from 4-12 were categorized as "poor" (4-7), "average" (8-11), and "optimal." The relationship between PPC, SDM, and English proficiency was analyzed. Among 13,880 respondents, most were white (n = 10,281, 75%), age 18-39 (n = 6,677, 48%), male (n = 7,275, 52%), middle income (n = 4,125, 30%), and born outside of the US (n = 9,125, 65%). English proficiency was rated as "very well" (n = 7,221, 52%), "well" (n = 2,378, 17%), "not well" (n = 2,820, 20%), or "not at all" (n = 1,463, 10%). On multivariable analysis, patients who rated their English as "well" (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37-2.18) or "not well" (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.10-2.14) were more likely to report "poor" PPC (both P < .01). Similarly, SDM was more commonly self-reported as "poor" among patients who reported English proficiency as "not well" (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04-1.65, P = .02). Decreased English proficiency was associated with worse self-reported patient-provider communication and shared decision-making. Attention to patients' language needs is critical to patient satisfaction and improved perception of care. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Assessing Option Grid® practicability and feasibility for facilitating shared decision making: An exploratory study.

PubMed

Tsulukidze, Maka; Grande, Stuart W; Gionfriddo, Michael R

2015-07-01

To assess the feasibility of Option Grids(®)for facilitating shared decision making (SDM) in simulated clinical consultations and explore clinicians' views on their practicability. We used mixed methods approach to analyze clinical consultations using the Observer OPTION instrument and thematic analysis for follow-up interviews with clinicians. Clinicians achieved high scores on information sharing and low scores on preference elicitation and integration. Four themes were identified: (1) Barriers affect practicability of Option Grids(®); (2) Option Grids(®) facilitate the SDM process; (3) Clinicians are aware of the gaps in their practice of SDM; (4) Training and ongoing feedback on the optimal use of Option Grids(®) are necessary. Use of Option Grids(®) by clinicians with background knowledge in SDM did not facilitate optimal levels of competency on the SDM core concepts of preference elicitation and integration. Future research must evaluate the impact of training on the use of Option Grids(®), and explore how best to help clinicians bridge the gap between knowledge and action. Clinicians proficiently imparting information in simulations struggled to elicit and integrate patient preferences - understanding this gap and developing strategies to close it are the next steps for implementing SDM into clinical practice. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Identifying design considerations for a shared decision aid for use at the point of outpatient clinical care: An ethnographic study at an inner city clinic.

PubMed

Hajizadeh, Negin; Perez Figueroa, Rafael E; Uhler, Lauren M; Chiou, Erin; Perchonok, Jennifer E; Montague, Enid

2013-03-06

Computerized decision aids could facilitate shared decision-making at the point of outpatient clinical care. The objective of this study was to investigate whether a computerized shared decision aid would be feasible to implement in an inner-city clinic by evaluating the current practices in shared decision-making, clinicians' use of computers, patient and clinicians' attitudes and beliefs toward computerized decision aids, and the influence of time on shared decision-making. Qualitative data analysis of observations and semi-structured interviews with patients and clinicians at an inner-city outpatient clinic. The findings provided an exploratory look at the prevalence of shared decision-making and attitudes about health information technology and decision aids. A prominent barrier to clinicians engaging in shared decision-making was a lack of perceived patient understanding of medical information. Some patients preferred their clinicians make recommendations for them rather than engage in formal shared decision-making. Health information technology was an integral part of the clinic visit and welcomed by most clinicians and patients. Some patients expressed the desire to engage with health information technology such as viewing their medical information on the computer screen with their clinicians. All participants were receptive to the idea of a decision aid integrated within the clinic visit although some clinicians were concerned about the accuracy of prognostic estimates for complex medical problems. We identified several important considerations for the design and implementation of a computerized decision aid including opportunities to: bridge clinician-patient communication about medical information while taking into account individual patients' decision-making preferences, complement expert clinician judgment with prognostic estimates, take advantage of patient waiting times, and make tasks involved during the clinic visit more efficient. These findings

GROUP DECISIONS. Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons.

PubMed

Strandburg-Peshkin, Ariana; Farine, Damien R; Couzin, Iain D; Crofoot, Margaret C

2015-06-19

Conflicts of interest about where to go and what to do are a primary challenge of group living. However, it remains unclear how consensus is achieved in stable groups with stratified social relationships. Tracking wild baboons with a high-resolution global positioning system and analyzing their movements relative to one another reveals that a process of shared decision-making governs baboon movement. Rather than preferentially following dominant individuals, baboons are more likely to follow when multiple initiators agree. When conflicts arise over the direction of movement, baboons choose one direction over the other when the angle between them is large, but they compromise if it is not. These results are consistent with models of collective motion, suggesting that democratic collective action emerging from simple rules is widespread, even in complex, socially stratified societies. Copyright © 2015, American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Sodium valproate in pregnancy: what are the risks and should we use a shared decision-making approach?

PubMed

Macfarlane, Alastair; Greenhalgh, Trisha

2018-06-01

Despite significant teratogenic risks, sodium valproate is still widely prescribed in many countries to women of childbearing age, as a mood stabiliser in bipolar disorder and also in epilepsy. The UK has recently banned valproate use in women who are not in a pregnancy prevention programme. Whilst this ruling reflects prevailing clinical practice, it also highlights an ongoing debate about when (if ever) a woman who is or could become pregnant should be allowed to choose to take valproate. We review the benefits and harms of drugs available for bipolar disorder and epilepsy in women of childbearing age, with a particular focus on teratogenic risk. We speculate on hypothetical rare situations in which potential benefits of valproate may outweigh potential harms in such women. We also review the literature on shared decision-making - on which there is now a NICE guideline and numerous evidence-based decision tools. Drawing on previous work by experts in shared decision-making, we offer a list of 'frequently asked questions' and a matrix of options to support conversations with women about continuing or discontinuing the drug in (or in anticipation of) pregnancy. We also consider whether shared decision-making is an appropriate paradigm when considering whether to continue a teratogenic drug. We conclude that because valproate in pregnancy remains the subject of such debate, there is scope for further research - not only into the relative efficacy and safety of alternatives to it - but also into the dynamics of communication and shared decision-making in this situation.

Development and field testing of a decision support tool to facilitate shared decision making in contraceptive counseling.

PubMed

Dehlendorf, Christine; Fitzpatrick, Judith; Steinauer, Jody; Swiader, Lawrence; Grumbach, Kevin; Hall, Cara; Kuppermann, Miriam

2017-07-01

We developed and formatively evaluated a tablet-based decision support tool for use by women prior to a contraceptive counseling visit to help them engage in shared decision making regarding method selection. Drawing upon formative work around women's preferences for contraceptive counseling and conceptual understanding of health care decision making, we iteratively developed a storyboard and then digital prototypes, based on best practices for decision support tool development. Pilot testing using both quantitative and qualitative data and cognitive testing was conducted. We obtained feedback from patient and provider advisory groups throughout the development process. Ninety-six percent of women who used the tool in pilot testing reported that it helped them choose a method, and qualitative interviews indicated acceptability of the tool's content and presentation. Compared to the control group, women who used the tool demonstrated trends toward increased likelihood of complete satisfaction with their method. Participant responses to cognitive testing were used in tool refinement. Our decision support tool appears acceptable to women in the family planning setting. Formative evaluation of the tool supports its utility among patients making contraceptive decisions, which can be further evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Shared Decision Making for Clients with Mental Illness: A Randomized Factorial Survey

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lukens, Jonathan M.; Solomon, Phyllis; Sorenson, Susan B.

2013-01-01

Objective: The goal of this study was to test the degree to which client clinical characteristics and environmental context and social workers' practice values and experience influenced support for client's autonomy and willingness to engage in shared decision making (SDM), and whether willingness to engage in SDM was mediated by support for…

Impact of Sociocultural Background and Assessment Data Upon School Psychologists' Decisions.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Huebner, E. Scott; Cummings, Jack A.

1985-01-01

Psychologists (N=56) participated in an adapted version of Algozzine and Ysseldyke's (1981) diagnostic simulation to investigate the effects of sociocultural background (rural vs. suburban) and assessment data (normal vs. learning disabled) on educational decisions. Findings suggest school psychologists utilize multiple sources of information but…

Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: Respecting Patient Autonomy When Seconds Count.

PubMed

Hess, Erik P; Grudzen, Corita R; Thomson, Richard; Raja, Ali S; Carpenter, Christopher R

2015-07-01

Shared decision-making (SDM), a collaborative process in which patients and providers make health care decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values and preferences, is being increasingly advocated as the optimal approach to decision-making for many health care decisions. The rapidly paced and often chaotic environment of the emergency department (ED), however, is a unique clinical setting that offers many practical and contextual challenges. Despite these challenges, in a recent survey emergency physicians reported there to be more than one reasonable management option for over 50% of their patients and that they take an SDM approach in 58% of such patients. SDM has also been selected as the topic on which to develop a future research agenda at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, "Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda" (http://www.saem.org/annual-meeting/education/2016-aem-consensus-conference). In this paper the authors describe the conceptual model of SDM as originally conceived by Charles and Gafni and highlight aspects of the model relevant to the practice of emergency medicine. In addition, through the use of vignettes from the authors' clinical practices, the applicability of SDM to contemporary EM practice is illustrated and the ethical and pragmatic implications of taking an SDM approach are explored. It is hoped that this document will be read in advance of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, to facilitate group discussions at the conference. © 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Shared decision making in West Africa: The forgotten area.

PubMed

Diouf, Ndeye Thiab; Ben Charif, Ali; Adisso, Lionel; Adekpedjou, Rhéda; Zomahoun, Hervé Tchala Vignon; Agbadjé, Titilayo Tatiana; Dogba, Mama Joyce; Garvelink, Mirjam Marjolein

2017-06-01

Up to now, little attention has been paid to West Africa when it comes to shared decision making (SDM). West African countries seem to lag behind with regard to SDM initiatives compared to many other countries in the world. There is some interest in informed decision making or informed consent, but little in a full SDM process. Few decision-making tools are available for healthcare professionals and the majority are not designed to support decision-making with patients. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, there are no training programs for implementing SDM in healthcare teams. Many barriers exist to implementing SDM in West Africa, including lack of options, few or poor health resources and low levels of education. However, African countries present many opportunities for SDM as well. Existing SDM innovations developed for other populations with low literacy could be explored and adapted to the West African context, and research on implementation and outcomes in West Africa could contribute to SDM worldwide. West African countries are in an excellent position to both learn from other countries and contribute to SDM development in other parts of the world. In this paper we reflect on SDM challenges and opportunities, and propose a research agenda for West Africa. We hope to awaken interest in SDM in West Africa and encourage future collaborations on SDM with various West African stakeholders, including patients, healthcare professionals, policymakers, non-government organisations (NGOs) and academic institutions. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

The Effect of Shared Decision-Making on the Improvement in Teachers' Job Development

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Chi Keung, Cheng

2008-01-01

Background: Teacher Participation in decision-making is one of the recommendations of school-based management and one of the key characteristics of an effective school. Although teacher participation in decision making is claimed to be correlated with their affective outcome, few researchers have been attempted to verify the predictive…

Shared decision making and medication management in the recovery process.

PubMed

Deegan, Patricia E; Drake, Robert E

2006-11-01

Mental health professionals commonly conceptualize medication management for people with severe mental illness in terms of strategies to increase compliance or adherence. The authors argue that compliance is an inadequate construct because it fails to capture the dynamic complexity of autonomous clients who must navigate decisional conflicts in learning to manage disorders over the course of years or decades. Compliance is rooted in medical paternalism and is at odds with principles of person-centered care and evidence-based medicine. Using medication is an active process that involves complex decision making and a chance to work through decisional conflicts. It requires a partnership between two experts: the client and the practitioner. Shared decision making provides a model for them to assess a treatment's advantages and disadvantages within the context of recovering a life after a diagnosis of a major mental disorder.

Consumer Outcomes After Implementing CommonGround as an Approach to Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Salyers, Michelle P; Fukui, Sadaaki; Bonfils, Kelsey A; Firmin, Ruth L; Luther, Lauren; Goscha, Rick; Rapp, Charles A; Holter, Mark C

2017-03-01

The authors examined consumer outcomes before and after implementing CommonGround, a computer-based shared decision-making program. Consumers with severe mental illness (N=167) were interviewed prior to implementation and 12 and 18 months later to assess changes in active treatment involvement, symptoms, and recovery-related attitudes. Providers also rated consumers on level of treatment involvement. Most consumers used CommonGround at least once (67%), but few used the program regularly. Mixed-effects regression analyses showed improvement in self-reported symptoms and recovery attitudes. Self-reported treatment involvement did not change; however, for a subset of consumers with the same providers over time (N=83), the providers rated consumers as more active in treatment. This study adds to the growing literature on tools to support shared decision making, showing the potential benefits of CommonGround for improving recovery outcomes. More work is needed to better engage consumers in CommonGround and to test the approach with more rigorous methods.

How shared is shared decision-making? A care-ethical view on the role of partner and family.

PubMed

van Nistelrooij, Inge; Visse, Merel; Spekkink, Ankana; de Lange, Jasmijn

2017-09-01

The aim of shared decision-making (SDM) is to provide information to patients in order to enable them to decide autonomously and freely about treatment together with the doctor, without interference, force or coercion by others. Relatives may be considered as hindering or impeding a patient's own decision. Qualitative-empirical research into lived experience of SDM of patients with cancer, however, problematises the patient's autonomy when facing terminal illness and the need to make decisions regarding treatment. Confronted with this difficulty, this contribution tries to think through patients' dependency of others, and make their autonomy more relational, drawing on care-ethical critics of a one-sided view of autonomy and on Ricoeur's view of the fundamentally intersubjective, relational self. We aim to conceptualise relatives not as a third party next to the doctor and the patient, but as co-constituents of the patient's identity and as such present in the decision-making process from the outset. What is more, partners and the family may be of inestimable help in retrieving the patient's identity in line with the past, present and possible future. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Interventions for promoting participation in shared decision-making for children with cancer.

PubMed

Coyne, Imelda; O'Mathúna, Dónal P; Gibson, Faith; Shields, Linda; Leclercq, Edith; Sheaf, Greg

2016-11-29

This is an update of the Cochrane systematic review of shared decision-making (SMD) making published in 2013. Children's rights to have their views heard in matters that affect their lives are now well established since the publication of the UN Convention treaty (1989). Children with cancer generally prefer to be involved in decision-making and consider it important that they have the opportunity to take part in decision-making concerning their health care, even in end-of-life decisions. There is considerable support for involving children in healthcare decision-making at a level commensurate with their experience, age and abilities. Thus, healthcare professionals and parents need to know how they should involve children in decision-making and what interventions are most effective in promoting SDM for children with cancer. To examine the effects of SDM interventions on the process of SDM for children with cancer who are aged four to 18 years. We searched the following sources for the review: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 1); PubMed (NLM) (1946 to February 2016); Embase (Ovid) (1974 to February 2016); CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to February 2016); ERIC (ProQuest) (1966 to February 2016); PsycINFO (EBSCO) (1806 to February 2016); BIOSIS (Thomson Reuters) (1980 to December 2009 - subscription ceased at that date); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1637 to February 2016); and Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest) (1952 to February 2016). In addition we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles and the following conference proceedings (2005 up to and including 2015): American Academy on Communication in Healthcare (AACH), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Association for Communication in Healthcare (EACH), International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH), International Shared Decision Making Conference (ISDM), Annual

Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making.

PubMed

Schroy, Paul C; Mylvaganam, Shamini; Davidson, Peter

2014-02-01

Decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been shown to enable patients to identify a preferred screening option, but the extent to which such tools facilitate shared decision making (SDM) from the perspective of the provider is less well established. Our goal was to elicit provider feedback regarding the impact of a CRC screening decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting. Cross-sectional survey. Primary care providers participating in a clinical trial evaluating the impact of a novel CRC screening decision aid on SDM and adherence. Perceptions of the impact of the tool on decision-making and implementation issues. Twenty-nine of 42 (71%) eligible providers responded, including 27 internists and two nurse practitioners. The majority (>60%) felt that use of the tool complimented their usual approach, increased patient knowledge, helped patients identify a preferred screening option, improved the quality of decision making, saved time and increased patients' desire to get screened. Respondents were more neutral is their assessment of whether the tool improved the overall quality of the patient visit or patient satisfaction. Fewer than 50% felt that the tool would be easy to implement into their practices or that it would be widely used by their colleagues. Decision aids for CRC screening can improve the quality and efficiency of SDM from the provider perspective but future use is likely to depend on the extent to which barriers to implementation can be addressed. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Shared Decision Making at the Limit of Viability: A Blueprint for Physician Action

PubMed Central

2016-01-01

Objective To document interactions during the antenatal consultation between parents and neonatologist that parents linked to their satisfaction with their participation in shared decision making for their infant at risk of being born at the limit of viability. Methods This multiple-case ethnomethodological qualitative research study, included mothers admitted for a threatened premature delivery between 200/7 and 266/7 weeks gestation, the father, and the staff neonatologist conducting the clinical antenatal consultation. Content analysis of an audiotaped post-antenatal consultation interview with parents obtained their satisfaction scores as well as their comments on physician actions that facilitated their desired participation. Results Five cases, each called a “system—infant at risk”, included 10 parents and 6 neonatologists. From the interviews emerged a blueprint for action by physicians, including communication strategies that parents say facilitated their participation in decision making; such as building trustworthy physician-parent relationships, providing "balanced" information, offering choices, and allowing time to think. Conclusion Parent descriptions indicate that the opportunity to participate to their satisfaction in the clinical antenatal consultation depends on how the physician interacts with them. Practice implications The parent-identified communication strategies facilitate shared decision making regarding treatment in the best interest of the infant at risk to be born at the limit of viability. PMID:27893823

Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments-time to begin improving quality.

PubMed

Elf, Marie; Fröst, Peter; Lindahl, Göran; Wijk, Helle

2015-03-21

Successful implementation of new methods and models of healthcare to achieve better patient outcomes and safe, person-centered care is dependent on the physical environment of the healthcare architecture in which the healthcare is provided. Thus, decisions concerning healthcare architecture are critical because it affects people and work processes for many years and requires a long-term financial commitment from society. In this paper, we describe and suggest several strategies (critical factors) to promote shared-decision making when planning and designing new healthcare environments. This paper discusses challenges and hindrances observed in the literature and from the authors extensive experiences in the field of planning and designing healthcare environments. An overview is presented of the challenges and new approaches for a process that involves the mutual exchange of knowledge among various stakeholders. Additionally, design approaches that balance the influence of specific and local requirements with general knowledge and evidence that should be encouraged are discussed. We suggest a shared-decision making and collaborative planning and design process between representatives from healthcare, construction sector and architecture based on evidence and end-users' perspectives. If carefully and systematically applied, this approach will support and develop a framework for creating high quality healthcare environments.

Shared decision-making at the end of life: A focus group study exploring the perceptions and experiences of multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals working in the home setting.

PubMed

Brogan, Paula; Hasson, Felicity; McIlfatrick, Sonja

2018-01-01

Globally recommended in healthcare policy, Shared Decision-Making is also central to international policy promoting community palliative care. Yet realities of implementation by multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals who provide end-of-life care in the home are unclear. To explore multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals' perceptions and experiences of Shared Decision-Making at end of life in the home. Qualitative design using focus groups, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. A total of 43 participants, from multi-disciplinary community-based services in one region of the United Kingdom, were recruited. While the rhetoric of Shared Decision-Making was recognised, its implementation was impacted by several interconnecting factors, including (1) conceptual confusion regarding Shared Decision-Making, (2) uncertainty in the process and (3) organisational factors which impeded Shared Decision-Making. Multiple interacting factors influence implementation of Shared Decision-Making by professionals working in complex community settings at the end of life. Moving from rhetoric to reality requires future work exploring the realities of Shared Decision-Making practice at individual, process and systems levels.

Interventions to facilitate shared decision making to address antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in primary care.

PubMed

Coxeter, Peter; Del Mar, Chris B; McGregor, Leanne; Beller, Elaine M; Hoffmann, Tammy C

2015-11-12

Shared decision making is an important component of patient-centred care. It is a set of communication and evidence-based practice skills that elicits patients' expectations, clarifies any misperceptions and discusses the best available evidence for benefits and harms of treatment. Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for consulting in primary care and obtaining prescriptions for antibiotics. However, antibiotics offer few benefits for ARIs, and their excessive use contributes to antibiotic resistance - an evolving public health crisis. Greater explicit consideration of the benefit-harm trade-off within shared decision making may reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. To assess whether interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making increase or reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to December 2014) and Web of Science (1985 to December 2014). We searched for other published, unpublished or ongoing trials by searching bibliographies of published articles, personal communication with key trial authors and content experts, and by searching trial registries at the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (individual level or cluster-randomised), which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions that promote shared decision making (as the focus or a component of the intervention) about antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. Antibiotic prescribing was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included clinically important adverse endpoints (e.g. re-consultations, hospital admissions, mortality) and process measures (e.g. patient satisfaction). We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and the quality of evidence. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing

Association of a traditional vs shared meal decision-making and preparation style with eating behavior of Hispanic women in San Diego County.

PubMed

Arredondo, Elva M; Elder, John P; Ayala, Guadalupe X; Slymen, Donald; Campbell, Nadia R

2006-01-01

To examine the influence of meal decision-making and preparation on Hispanic women's dietary practices. One-on-one structured interviews were conducted, assessing meal decision-making and preparation practices, barriers, and behavioral strategies to eating low-fat and high-fiber diets, fat and fiber intake, demographic, and other psychosocial factors. The study population included 357 Hispanic women living in the southern or central regions of San Diego County. Participants were recruited via random-digit dialing to a tailored nutrition communication intervention. Household decision-making style (alone vs with family) by household activity (decides meals, prepares meals, and decides snacks). Multiple logistic regressions were used to evaluate associations between the predictors and dependent variable. All models included adjustments for potential confounders, such as marital status, education, employment, age, and acculturation. A positive statistical association between Hispanic women's acculturation level and shared decision-making style was found. Also, Hispanic women in shared decision-making households faced greater psychosocial barriers to healthful eating and reported less healthful eating compared with Hispanic women in traditional households. Women in shared decision-making households were more likely to eat at fast-food restaurants, less likely to engage in behavioral strategies promoting fiber consumption, eat more saturated fat, and encounter more barriers to reduce dietary fat as compared with Hispanic women in traditional households. Acculturation did not attenuate differences in psychosocial and dietary practices between shared decision-making and traditional households. Study findings suggest intervention efforts should focus on different aspects of healthful eating among Hispanic women in shared-decision, compared with traditional, households.

Psychometric evaluation of the Shared Decision-Making Instrument--Revised.

PubMed

Bartlett, Jacqueline A; Peterson, Jane A

2013-02-01

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Shared Decision-Making Inventory-Revised (SDMI-R) to measure four constructs (knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and intent) theoretically defined as vital in discussing the human papillomavirus (HPV) disease and vaccine with clients. The SDMI-R was distributed to a sample (N = 1,525) of school nurses. Correlational matrixes denoted moderate to strong correlations, indicating adequate internal reliability. Reliability for the total instrument was satisfactory (α = .874) along with Attitude, Self-Efficacy and Intent subscales .828, .917, .891, respectively. Exploratory factor analysis revealed five components that explained 75.96% of the variance.

The relationship between shared decision-making and health-related quality of life among patients in Hong Kong SAR, China.

PubMed

Xu, Richard H; Cheung, Annie W L; Wong, Eliza L Y

2017-08-01

To elucidate the association between health-related quality of life and shared decision-making among patients in Hong Kong after adjustment for potential confounding variables. A telephone survey was conducted with patients attending all public specialist outpatient clinics in Hong Kong between July and December 2014. The Specialist Outpatient Patient Experience Questionnaire and EQ-5D questionnaire were used to evaluate shared decision-making and quality of life, respectively. We performed a Tobit regression analysis to examine the associations between shared decision-making and quality of life after adjustment for known social, economic and health-related factors. Twenty-six of the Hospital Authority's specialist outpatient clinics. Patients aged 18 years or older who attended one of the Hospital Authority's specialist outpatient clinics between July and November 2014. Shared decision-making and quality of life score. Overall, 13 966 patients completed the study. The group reporting partial involvement in decision-making had slightly higher EQ-5D scores than the 'not involved' group and the 'fully involved' group. EQ-5D scores were higher among subjects who were younger, male, and had a higher level of education. Respondents living alone and living in institutions scored lower on the EQ-5D than patients living with families. Important differences in the relationship between the attitudes towards shared decision-making and quality of life were identified among patients. These associations should be taken into consideration when promoting patient-centred care and improving health professional-patient communication. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

Designing and evaluating an interprofessional shared decision-making and goal-setting decision aid for patients with diabetes in clinical care--systematic decision aid development and study protocol.

PubMed

Yu, Catherine H; Stacey, Dawn; Sale, Joanna; Hall, Susan; Kaplan, David M; Ivers, Noah; Rezmovitz, Jeremy; Leung, Fok-Han; Shah, Baiju R; Straus, Sharon E

2014-01-22

Care of patients with diabetes often occurs in the context of other chronic illness. Competing disease priorities and competing patient-physician priorities present challenges in the provision of care for the complex patient. Guideline implementation interventions to date do not acknowledge these intricacies of clinical practice. As a result, patients and providers are left overwhelmed and paralyzed by the sheer volume of recommendations and tasks. An individualized approach to the patient with diabetes and multiple comorbid conditions using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting has been advocated as a patient-centred approach that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. Furthermore, incorporating interprofessional integration into practice may overcome barriers to implementation. However, these strategies have not been taken up extensively in clinical practice. To systematically develop and test an interprofessional SDM and goal-setting toolkit for patients with diabetes and other chronic diseases, following the Knowledge to Action framework. 1. Feasibility study: Individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and patients with diabetes will be conducted, exploring their experiences with shared decision-making and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, the relevance of a decision aid and toolkit for priority-setting, and how best to integrate it into practice.2. Toolkit development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multi-component SDM toolkit will be developed. The toolkit will be reviewed by content experts (primary care, endocrinology, geriatricians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, patients) for accuracy and comprehensiveness.3. Heuristic evaluation: A human factors engineer will review the toolkit and identify, list and categorize usability issues by severity.4. Usability testing: This will be done using cognitive task analysis.5. Iterative refinement: Throughout the development

Exploring Provider Reactions to Decision Aid Distribution and Shared Decision Making: Lessons from Two Specialties.

PubMed

Hsu, Clarissa; Liss, David T; Frosch, Dominick L; Westbrook, Emily O; Arterburn, David

2017-01-01

A critical component of shared decision making (SDM) is the role played by health care providers in distributing decision aids (DAs) and initiating SDM conversations. Existing literature indicates that decisions about designing and implementing DAs must take provider perspectives into account. However, little is known about how differences in provider attitudes across specialties may impact DA implementation and how provider attitudes may shift after DA implementation. Group Health's Decision Aid Implementation project was carried out in six specialties using 12 video-based DAs for preference-sensitive conditions; this study focused on two of the six specialties. In-depth, qualitative interviews with specialty care providers in two specialties-orthopedics and cardiology-at two time points during DA implementation. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. We interviewed 19 care providers in orthopedics and cardiology. All respondents believed that providing patients with accurate information on their health conditions and treatment options was important and that most patients wanted an active role in decision making. However, respondents diverged in decision-making styles and views on the practicality and appropriateness of using the DAs and SDM. For example, cardiology specialists were ambivalent about DAs for coronary artery disease because many viewed DAs and SDM as unnecessary or inappropriate for this clinical condition. Provider attitudes towards DAs and SDM were generally stable over two years. Limitations include a lack of patient perspectives, social desirability bias, and possible selection bias. Successfully implementing DAs in clinical practice to promote SDM requires addressing individual provider attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of SDM by specialty. During DA development and implementation, providers should be asked for input about the specific conditions and care processes that are most appropriate for SDM. © The Author(s) 2016.

Shared motion signals for human perceptual decisions and oculomotor actions

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Stone, Leland S.; Krauzlis, Richard J.

2003-01-01

A fundamental question in primate neurobiology is to understand to what extent motor behaviors are driven by shared neural signals that also support conscious perception or by independent subconscious neural signals dedicated to motor control. Although it has clearly been established that cortical areas involved in processing visual motion support both perception and smooth pursuit eye movements, it remains unknown whether the same or different sets of neurons within these structures perform these two functions. Examination of the trial-by-trial variation in human perceptual and pursuit responses during a simultaneous psychophysical and oculomotor task reveals that the direction signals for pursuit and perception are not only similar on average but also co-vary on a trial-by-trial basis, even when performance is at or near chance and the decisions are determined largely by neural noise. We conclude that the neural signal encoding the direction of target motion that drives steady-state pursuit and supports concurrent perceptual judgments emanates from a shared ensemble of cortical neurons.

The Shared Decision Making Frontier: a Feasibility and Usability Study for Managing Non-Critical Chronic Illness by Combining Behavioural & Decision Theory with Online Technology.

PubMed

Russell, Amina; Van Woensel, William; Abidi, Samina Raza

2015-01-01

The objective of this study is to determine if shared decisions for managing non-critical chronic illness, made through an online biomedical technology intervention, us feasible and usable. The technology intervention incorporates behavioural and decision theories to increase patient engagement, and ultimately long term adherence to health behaviour change. We devised the iheart web intervention as a "proof of concept" in five phases. The implementation incorporates the Vaadin web application framework, Drools, EclipseLink and a MySQL database. Two-thirds of the study participants favoured the technology intervention, based on Likert-scale questions from a post-study questionnaire. Qualitative analysis of think aloud feedback, video screen captures and open-ended questions from the post-study questionnaire uncovered six main areas or themes for improvement. We conclude that online shared decisions for managing a non-critical chronic illness are feasible and usable through the iheart web intervention.

What makes it so difficult for nurses to coach patients in shared decision making? A process evaluation.

PubMed

Lenzen, Stephanie Anna; Daniëls, Ramon; van Bokhoven, Marloes Amantia; van der Weijden, Trudy; Beurskens, Anna

2018-04-01

Primary care nurses play a crucial role in coaching patients in shared decision making about goals and actions. This presents a challenge to practice nurses, who are frequently used to protocol-based working routines. Therefore, an approach was developed to support nurses to coach patients in shared decision making. To investigate how the approach was implemented and experienced by practice nurses and patients. A process evaluation was conducted using quantitative and qualitative methods. Fifteen female practice nurses (aged between 28 and 55 years), working with people suffering from diabetes, COPD, asthma and/or cardiovascular diseases, participated. Nurses were asked to apply the approach to their chronically ill patients and to recruit patients (n = 10) willing to participate in an interview or an audio-recording of a consultation (n = 13); patients (13 women, 10 men) were aged between 41 and 88 years and suffered from diabetes, COPD or cardiovascular diseases. The approach involved a framework for shared decision making about goals and actions, a tool to explore the patient perspective, a patient profiles model and a training course. Interviews (n = 15) with nurses, a focus group with nurses (n = 9) and interviews with patients (n = 10) were conducted. Nurses filled in a questionnaire about their work routine before, during and after the training course. They were asked to deliver audiotapes of their consultations (n = 13). Overall, nurses felt that the approach supported them to coach patients in shared decision making. Nurses had become more aware of their own attitudes and learning needs and reported to have had more in-depth discussions with patients. The on-the-job coaching was experienced as valuable. However, nurses struggled to integrate the approach in routine care. They experienced the approach as different to their protocol-based routines and expressed the importance of receiving support and the need for integration of the

A shared decision-making tool for obstructive sleep apnea without tonsillar hypertrophy: A randomized controlled trial.

PubMed

Bergeron, Mathieu; Duggins, Angela L; Cohen, Aliza P; Tiemeyer, Karin; Mullen, Lisa; Crisalli, Joseph; McArthur, Angela; Ishman, Stacey L

2018-04-01

Shared decision-making is a process whereby patients and clinicians jointly establish a treatment plan integrating clinical evidence and patient values and preferences. Although this approach has been successfully employed in numerous medical disciplines, often using shared decision-making tools, otolaryngologic research assessing its use is scant. Our primary objective was therefore to determine if the tools we developed reduced decisional conflict for children with obstructive sleep apnea without tonsillar hypertrophy. Prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. We enrolled consecutive patients meeting inclusion criteria who were referred to our multidisciplinary upper airway center. Study patients used a shared decision-making tool whereas controls did not. Measures of decisional conflict (SURE [Sure of myself, Understanding information, Risk benefit ratio, Encouragement], CollaboRATE, and the Decisional Conflict Scale [DCS]) were obtained pre- and postvisit. We assessed 50 families (study group = 24, controls = 26). The mean age was 8.8 ± 6.6 years, 44% were female, 86% were white, and the mean obstructive apnea-hypopnea index was 12.7 ± 15.6 events/hour. The previsit mean DCS score was similar for controls (42.7) and study patients (40.8) (P = .38). The postvisit mean DCS score for controls was 13.3 and for study patients 6.1 (P = .034). Improvement in this score was greater in the study group (P = .03). At previsit evaluation, 63% of controls and 58% of study patients were unsure about their options. Postvisit, this improved to 4.1% and 0%, respectively. Families counseled regarding treatment options using shared decision-making tools had significantly less decisional conflict than those who did not use these tools. These positive outcomes suggest that clinicians should consider integrating this approach into clinical practice. 1b. Laryngoscope, 128:1007-1015, 2018. © 2017 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Shared decision making and patient decision aids: knowledge, attitudes, and practices among Hawai'i physicians.

PubMed

Alden, Dana L; Friend, John; Chun, Maria B J

2013-11-01

As the health care field moves toward patient-centered care (PCC), increasing emphasis has been placed on the benefits of patient decision aids for promoting shared decision making (SDM). This study provides a baseline measure of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) among Hawai'i's physicians with respect to patient decision aids (DAs). Physicians throughout the State of Hawai'i were invited to complete a survey assessing their knowledge, attitudes, and practices with respect to the clinical use of DAs. One hundred and seventy four valid surveys were analyzed. Reported awareness and use of DAs were low, but recognition of the benefits of SDM and openness to the use of DAs were very high. The leading perceived barriers to the implementation of DAs were lack of awareness, lack of resources, and limited physician time to learn about DA technology. However, a significant majority of the respondents reported that DAs could empower patients by improving knowledge (88%), increasing satisfaction with the consultation process (81%), and increasing compliance (74%). Among physicians currently employing DAs, use of brochures or options matrix sheets was the most common aid tool. However, leading recommended DA formats were paper-based brochures for clinic use (75%) and interactive online website programs for outside clinic use (73.5%). Given growing emphasis on the PCC model and the recognized desire of many patients to participate in the medical decision making process, positive responses toward SDM and the use of DAs by Hawai'i physicians are promising.

Virtual Small Business Emergency Operations Center (VSBEOC): Shared Awareness and Decision Making for Small Business

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-06-01

Shared Awareness and Decision Making for Small Business Topic(s) 2. Topic 1: Concepts, Theory , and Policy 1. Topic 5: Collaboration, Shared...emergencies do not have the time or the resources to collaborate on a continual basis with a large number of organizations. 3. A primary Crisis Management...Center (CMC) should be identified in advance. This is the initial site used by the Crisis Management Team and Response Teams for directing and

A model-driven privacy compliance decision support for medical data sharing in Europe.

PubMed

Boussi Rahmouni, H; Solomonides, T; Casassa Mont, M; Shiu, S; Rahmouni, M

2011-01-01

Clinical practitioners and medical researchers often have to share health data with other colleagues across Europe. Privacy compliance in this context is very important but challenging. Automated privacy guidelines are a practical way of increasing users' awareness of privacy obligations and help eliminating unintentional breaches of privacy. In this paper we present an ontology-plus-rules based approach to privacy decision support for the sharing of patient data across European platforms. We use ontologies to model the required domain and context information about data sharing and privacy requirements. In addition, we use a set of Semantic Web Rule Language rules to reason about legal privacy requirements that are applicable to a specific context of data disclosure. We make the complete set invocable through the use of a semantic web application acting as an interactive privacy guideline system can then invoke the full model in order to provide decision support. When asked, the system will generate privacy reports applicable to a specific case of data disclosure described by the user. Also reports showing guidelines per Member State may be obtained. The advantage of this approach lies in the expressiveness and extensibility of the modelling and inference languages adopted and the ability they confer to reason with complex requirements interpreted from high level regulations. However, the system cannot at this stage fully simulate the role of an ethics committee or review board.

A brief educational intervention to teach residents shared decision making in the intensive care unit.

PubMed

Yuen, Jacqueline K; Mehta, Sonal S; Roberts, Jordan E; Cooke, Joseph T; Reid, M Carrington

2013-05-01

Effective communication is essential for shared decision making with families of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), yet there is limited evidence on effective strategies to teach these skills. The study's objective was to pilot test an educational intervention to teach internal medicine interns skills in discussing goals of care and treatment decisions with families of critically ill patients using the shared decision making framework. The intervention consisted of a PowerPoint online module followed by a four-hour workshop implemented at a retreat for medicine interns training at an urban, academic medical center. Participants (N=33) completed post-intervention questionnaires that included self-assessed skills learned, an open-ended question on the most important learning points from the workshop, and retrospective pre- and post-workshop comfort level with ICU communication skills. Participants rated their satisfaction with the workshop. Twenty-nine interns (88%) completed the questionnaires. Important self-assessed communication skills learned reflect key components of shared decision making, which include assessing the family's understanding of the patient's condition (endorsed by 100%) and obtaining an understanding of the patient/family's perspectives, values, and goals (100%). Interns reported significant improvement in their comfort level with ICU communication skills (pre 3.26, post 3.73 on a five-point scale, p=0.004). Overall satisfaction with the intervention was high (mean 4.45 on a five-point scale). The findings suggest that a brief intervention designed to teach residents communication skills in conducting goals of care and treatment discussions in the ICU is feasible and can improve their comfort level with these conversations.

Involvement of people with dementia in making decisions about their lives: a qualitative study that appraises shared decision-making concerning daycare

PubMed Central

Groen-van de Ven, Leontine; Smits, Carolien; de Graaff, Fuusje; Span, Marijke; Eefsting, Jan; Jukema, Jan; Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra

2017-01-01

Objective To explore how people with dementia, their informal caregivers and their professionals participate in decision making about daycare and to develop a typology of participation trajectories. Design A qualitative study with a prospective, multiperspective design, based on 244 semistructured interviews, conducted during three interview rounds over the course of a year. Analysis was by means of content analysis and typology construction. Setting Community settings and nursing homes in the Netherlands. Participants 19 people with dementia, 36 of their informal caregivers and 38 of their professionals (including nurses, daycare employees and case managers). Results The participants’ responses related to three critical points in the decision-making trajectory about daycare: (1) the initial positive or negative expectations of daycare; (2) negotiation about trying out daycare by promoting, resisting or attuning to others; and (3) trying daycare, which resulted in positive or negative reactions from people with dementia and led to a decision. The ways in which care networks proceeded through these three critical points resulted in a typology of participation trajectories, including (1) working together positively toward daycare, (2) bringing conflicting perspectives together toward trying daycare and (3) not reaching commitment to try daycare. Conclusion Shared decision making with people with dementia is possible and requires and adapted process of decision making. Our results show that initial preferences based on information alone may change when people with dementia experience daycare. It is important to have a try-out period so that people with dementia can experience daycare without having to decide whether to continue it. Whereas shared decision making in general aims at moving from initial preferences to informed preferences, professionals should focus more on moving from initial preferences to experienced preferences for people with dementia

Communication practices that encourage and constrain shared decision making in health-care encounters: Systematic review of conversation analytic research.

PubMed

Land, Victoria; Parry, Ruth; Seymour, Jane

2017-12-01

Shared decision making (SDM) is generally treated as good practice in health-care interactions. Conversation analytic research has yielded detailed findings about decision making in health-care encounters. To map decision making communication practices relevant to health-care outcomes in face-to-face interactions yielded by prior conversation analyses, and to examine their function in relation to SDM. We searched nine electronic databases (last search November 2016) and our own and other academics' collections. Published conversation analyses (no restriction on publication dates) using recordings of health-care encounters in English where the patient (and/or companion) was present and where the data and analysis focused on health/illness-related decision making. We extracted study characteristics, aims, findings relating to communication practices, how these functioned in relation to SDM, and internal/external validity issues. We synthesised findings aggregatively. Twenty-eight publications met the inclusion criteria. We sorted findings into 13 types of communication practices and organized these in relation to four elements of decision-making sequences: (i) broaching decision making; (ii) putting forward a course of action; (iii) committing or not (to the action put forward); and (iv) HCPs' responses to patients' resistance or withholding of commitment. Patients have limited opportunities to influence decision making. HCPs' practices may constrain or encourage this participation. Patients, companions and HCPs together treat and undertake decision making as shared, though to varying degrees. Even for non-negotiable treatment trajectories, the spirit of SDM can be invoked through practices that encourage participation (eg by bringing the patient towards shared understanding of the decision's rationale). © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Practices of US health insurance companies concerning MS therapies interfere with shared decision-making and harm patients.

PubMed

Bourdette, Dennis N; Hartung, Daniel M; Whitham, Ruth H

2016-04-01

The US Food and Drug Administration has registered 13 multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The medications are not interchangeable as they vary in route of administration, efficacy, and safety profile. Selecting the appropriate MS DMT for individual patients requires shared decision-making between patients and neurologists. To reduce costs, insurance companies acting through pharmacy benefit companies restrict access to MS DMTs through tiered coverage and other regulations. We discuss how policies established by insurance companies that limit access to MS DMTs interfere with the process of shared decision-making and harm patients. We present potential actions that neurologists can take to change how insurance companies manage MS DMTs.

The impact of the distance-dependent promotional effect on the promotion cost sharing decision

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Sheen, Gwo-Ji; Wang, Shih-Yen; Yeh, Yingchieh

2016-02-01

This paper considers the promotion cost sharing decision between a supplier and a retailer. The customer demand is affected by both national and local promotional effects while the local promotional effect on a customer is dependent on the distance between the retailer and this customer. We propose a continuous approximation approach to modelling the sum of the customer demand in the whole market area served by the retailer. A model is provided to help managers decide on the retail price, the local advertising expenditure, the national advertising expenditure, and the supplier participation rate, with consideration of the influence of distance on the promotional effect. We also find that the supplier's promotion cost sharing rate increases as the market size increases or the influence of distance on the promotional effect decreases. A numerical example is given to show that the nature of distance-dependent promotional effect has a significant impact on the decisions and profits.

What Factors are Associated with Consumer Initiation of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Visits?

PubMed Central

Matthias, Marianne S.; Fukui, Sadaaki; Salyers, Michelle P.

2016-01-01

Understanding consumer initiation of shared decision making (SDM) is critical to improving SDM in mental health consultations, particularly because providers do not always invite consumer participation in treatment decisions. This study examined the association between consumer initiation of nine elements of SDM as measured by the SDM scale, and measures of consumer illness self-management and the consumer-provider relationship. In 63 mental health visits, three SDM elements were associated with self-management or relationship factors: discussion of consumer goals, treatment alternatives, and pros and cons of a decision. Limitations, implications, and future directions are discussed. PMID:26427999

What Factors are Associated with Consumer Initiation of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Visits?

PubMed

Matthias, Marianne S; Fukui, Sadaaki; Salyers, Michelle P

2017-01-01

Understanding consumer initiation of shared decision making (SDM) is critical to improving SDM in mental health consultations, particularly because providers do not always invite consumer participation in treatment decisions. This study examined the association between consumer initiation of nine elements of SDM as measured by the SDM scale, and measures of consumer illness self-management and the consumer-provider relationship. In 63 mental health visits, three SDM elements were associated with self-management or relationship factors: discussion of consumer goals, treatment alternatives, and pros and cons of a decision. Limitations, implications, and future directions are discussed.

Emergency physician perceptions of shared decision-making.

PubMed

Kanzaria, Hemal K; Brook, Robert H; Probst, Marc A; Harris, Dustin; Berry, Sandra H; Hoffman, Jerome R

2015-04-01

Despite the potential benefits of shared decision-making (SDM), its integration into emergency care is challenging. Emergency physician (EP) perceptions about the frequency with which they use SDM, its potential to reduce medically unnecessary diagnostic testing, and the barriers to employing SDM in the emergency department (ED) were investigated. As part of a larger project examining beliefs on overtesting, questions were posed to EPs about SDM. Qualitative analysis of two multispecialty focus groups was done exploring decision-making around resource use to generate survey items. The survey was then pilot-tested and revised to focus on advanced diagnostic imaging and SDM. The final survey was administered to EPs recruited at four emergency medicine (EM) conferences and 15 ED group meetings. This report addresses responses regarding SDM. A purposive sample of 478 EPs from 29 states were approached, of whom 435 (91%) completed the survey. EPs estimated that, on average, multiple reasonable management options exist in over 50% of their patients and reported employing SDM with 58% of such patients. Respondents perceived SDM as a promising solution to reduce overtesting. However, despite existing research to the contrary, respondents also commonly cited beliefs that 1) "many patients prefer that the physician decides," 2) "when offered a choice, many patients opt for more aggressive care than they need," and 3) "it is too complicated for patients to know how to choose." Most surveyed EPs believe SDM is a potential high-yield solution to overtesting, but many perceive patient-related barriers to its successful implementation. © 2015 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

To what extent is treatment adherence of psychiatric patients influenced by their participation in shared decision making?

PubMed

De Las Cuevas, Carlos; Peñate, Wenceslao; de Rivera, Luis

2014-01-01

Nonadherence to prescribed medications is a significant barrier to the successful treatment of psychiatric disorders in clinical practice. It has been argued that patient participation in shared decision making improves adherence to treatment plans. To assess to what extent treatment adherence of psychiatric patients is influenced by the concordance between their preferred participation and their actual participation in decision making. A total of 967 consecutive psychiatric outpatients completed the Control Preference Scale twice consecutively before consultation, one for their preferences of participation, and the other for the style they had usually experienced until then, and the eight-item self-report Morisky Medication Adherence Scale 8. Most psychiatric outpatients preferred a collaborative role in decision making. Congruence was achieved in only 50% of the patients, with most mismatch cases preferring more involvement than had been experienced. Self-reported adherence was significantly higher in those patients in whom there was concordance between their preferences and their experiences of participation in decision making, regardless of the type of participation preferred. Congruence between patients' preferences and actual experiences for level of participation in shared decision making is relevant for their adherence to treatment.

Improving access to shared decision-making for Hispanics/Latinos with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus

PubMed Central

Davidson, Jaime A; Rosales, Aracely; Shillington, Alicia C; Bailey, Robert A; Kabir, Chris; Umpierrez, Guillermo E

2015-01-01

Purpose To describe the cultural and linguistic adaptation and Spanish translation of an English-language patient decision aid (PDA) for use in supporting shared decision-making in Hispanics/Latinos with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a group at a high risk for complications. Patients and methods A steering committee of endocrinologists, a primary care physician, a certified diabetes educator, and a dietician, each with extensive experience in providing care to Hispanics/Latinos was convened to assess a PDA developed for English-speaking patients with T2DM. English content was reviewed for cultural sensitivity and appropriateness for a Hispanic/Latino population. A consensus-building process and iterative version edits incorporated clinician perspectives. The content was adapted to be consistent with traditional Hispanic/Latino cultural communication precepts (eg, avoidance of hostile confrontation; value for warm interaction; respect for authority; value of family support for decisions). The PDA was translated by native-speaking individuals with diabetes expertise. Results The PDA underwent testing during cognitive interviews with ten Spanish-speaking Hispanics/Latinos with T2DM to ensure that the content is reflective of the experience, understanding, and language Hispanic/Latino patients use to describe diabetes and treatment. Content edits were made to assure a literacy level appropriate to the audience, and the PDA was produced for online video dissemination. Conclusion High-quality, well-developed tools to facilitate shared decision-making in populations with limited access to culturally sensitive information can narrow gaps and align care with individual patient preferences. A newly developed PDA is available for shared decision-making that provides culturally appropriate treatment information for inadequately controlled Hispanics/Latinos with T2DM. The impact on the overall health of patients and care management of T2DM requires further study. PMID

Improving access to shared decision-making for Hispanics/Latinos with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.

PubMed

Davidson, Jaime A; Rosales, Aracely; Shillington, Alicia C; Bailey, Robert A; Kabir, Chris; Umpierrez, Guillermo E

2015-01-01

To describe the cultural and linguistic adaptation and Spanish translation of an English-language patient decision aid (PDA) for use in supporting shared decision-making in Hispanics/Latinos with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a group at a high risk for complications. A steering committee of endocrinologists, a primary care physician, a certified diabetes educator, and a dietician, each with extensive experience in providing care to Hispanics/Latinos was convened to assess a PDA developed for English-speaking patients with T2DM. English content was reviewed for cultural sensitivity and appropriateness for a Hispanic/Latino population. A consensus-building process and iterative version edits incorporated clinician perspectives. The content was adapted to be consistent with traditional Hispanic/Latino cultural communication precepts (eg, avoidance of hostile confrontation; value for warm interaction; respect for authority; value of family support for decisions). The PDA was translated by native-speaking individuals with diabetes expertise. The PDA underwent testing during cognitive interviews with ten Spanish-speaking Hispanics/Latinos with T2DM to ensure that the content is reflective of the experience, understanding, and language Hispanic/Latino patients use to describe diabetes and treatment. Content edits were made to assure a literacy level appropriate to the audience, and the PDA was produced for online video dissemination. High-quality, well-developed tools to facilitate shared decision-making in populations with limited access to culturally sensitive information can narrow gaps and align care with individual patient preferences. A newly developed PDA is available for shared decision-making that provides culturally appropriate treatment information for inadequately controlled Hispanics/Latinos with T2DM. The impact on the overall health of patients and care management of T2DM requires further study.

Interventions for promoting participation in shared decision-making for children with cancer.

PubMed

Coyne, Imelda; O'Mathúna, Dónal P; Gibson, Faith; Shields, Linda; Sheaf, Greg

2013-06-06

Children's rights to have their views heard in matters that affect their lives are now well established since the publication of the UN Convention treaty (1989). Children with cancer generally prefer to be involved in decision-making and consider it important that they have the opportunity to take part in decision-making concerning their health care, even in end-of-life decisions. There is considerable support for involving children in healthcare decision-making at a level commensurate with their experience, age and abilities. Thus healthcare professionals and parents need to know how they should involve children in decision-making and what interventions are most effective in promoting shared decision-making (SDM) for children with cancer. To examine the effects of SDM interventions on the process of SDM for children with cancer who are aged four to 18 years. We searched the following sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2012); PubMed (1946 to September 2012); EMBASE (1974 to September 2012); CINAHL (1982 to September 2012); PsycINFO (1806 to September 2012); BIOSIS (1980 to December 2009 - subscription ceased at that date); ERIC (1966 to September 2012); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1637 to September 2012); and Sociological Abstracts (1952 to September 2012). We searched for information about trials not registered in these resources, either published or unpublished, by searching the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles and the following conference proceedings (2005-2012):American Academy on Communication in Healthcare (AACH), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Cancer Conference (ECCO), European Association for Communication in Healthcare (EACH), International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH), International Shared Decision Making Conference (ISDM 2005-2011 as held every two years), Annual Conference of the International Society for Paediatric

Shared decision making in Italy: An updated revision of the current situation.

PubMed

Bottacini, Alessandro; Scalia, Peter; Goss, Claudia

2017-06-01

The aim of this paper is to update the previous review on the state of patient and public participation in healthcare in Italy. Policymakers consider patient involvement an important aspect in health care decisions and encourage patients to actively participate in the clinical interaction. Nevertheless, the term shared decision making (SDM) is still not clearly defined. Patient associations promote patient participation in health care decisions. Several experts attended the latest consensus conference about patient engagement to reach a consensus on the definition of SDM. Research regarding SDM in Italy continues to increase with 17 articles published between 2012 and 2017. Researchers have assessed the variables associated with patient involvement and explored the use of the SDM approach in different medical settings. Despite the dedicated SDM initiative, researchers in Italy recognize room for improvement. Work is needed to reach a common language regarding SDM and its mechanisms to implement this approach at the clinical level. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Shared decision making in preventive care in Switzerland: From theory to action.

PubMed

Selby, Kevin; Auer, Reto; Cornuz, Jacques

2017-06-01

Switzerland with its decentralized, liberal health system and its tradition of direct democracy may be an ideal place for shared decision making (SDM) to take root organically, rather than using top-down regulations seen in other countries. There are now multiple directives and programmes in place to encourage SDM, with the creation of several decision aids and specific training programs in the five Swiss medical schools. There has been an emphasis on preventive care, with the integration of patient preference into an organized colorectal cancer screening program, clear recommendations for prostate cancer screening, and inroads into the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Focusing on the experience of the University of Lausanne, we describe multiple approaches being taken to teaching SDM and the local development of decision aids, drawing on international experience but tailored to local needs. Efforts are being made to further involve patients in not only SDM, but also associated research and quality improvement projects. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

The context influences doctors' support of shared decision-making in cancer care.

PubMed

Shepherd, H L; Tattersall, M H N; Butow, P N

2007-07-02

Most cancer patients in westernised countries now want all information about their situation, good or bad, and many wish to be involved in decision-making. The attitudes to and use of shared decision-making (SDM) by cancer doctors is not well known. Australian cancer clinicians treating breast, colorectal, gynaecological, haematological, or urological cancer were surveyed to identify their usual approach to decision-making and their comfort with different decision-making styles when discussing treatment with patients. A response rate of 59% resulted in 624 complete surveys, which explored usual practice in discussing participation in decision-making, providing information, and perception of the role patients want to play. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of use of SDM. Most cancer doctors (62.4%) reported using SDM and being most comfortable with this approach. Differences were apparent between reported high comfort with SDM and less frequent usual practice. Multivariate analysis showed that specialisation in breast or urological cancers compared to other cancers (AOR 3.02), high caseload of new patients per month (AOR 2.81) and female gender (AOR 1.87) were each independently associated with increased likelihood of use of SDM. Barriers exist to the application of SDM by doctors according to clinical situation and clinician characteristics.

Primary Care Physicians' Support of Shared Decision Making for Different Cancer Screening Decisions.

PubMed

Elston Lafata, Jennifer; Brown, Richard F; Pignone, Michael P; Ratliff, Scott; Shay, L Aubree

2017-01-01

Despite its widespread advocacy, shared decision making (SDM) is not routinely used for cancer screening. To better understand the implementation barriers, we describe primary care physicians' (PCPs') support for SDM across diverse cancer screening contexts. Surveys were mailed to a random sample of USA-based PCPs. Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, we tested for associations of PCPs' support of SDM with the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) assigned recommendation grade, assessed whether the decision pertained to not screening older patients, and the PCPs' autonomous v. controlled motivation-orientation for using SDM. PCPs (n = 278) were, on average, aged 52 years, 38% female, and 69% white. Of these, 79% endorsed discussing screening benefits as very important to SDM; 64% for discussing risks; and 31% for agreeing with patient's opinion. PCPs were most likely to rate SDM as very important for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 50-75 years (69%), and least likely for colorectal cancer screening in adults aged >85 years (34%). Regression results indicated the importance of PCPs' having autonomous or self-determined reasons for engaging in SDM (e.g., believing in the benefits of SDM) (OR = 2.29, 95% CI, 1.87 to 2.79). PCPs' support for SDM varied by USPSTF recommendation grade (overall contrast, X 2 = 14.7; P = 0.0054), with support greatest for A-Grade recommendations. Support for SDM was lower in contexts where decisions pertained to not screening older patients (OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.56). It is unknown whether PCPs' perceptions of the importance of SDM behaviors differs with specific screening decisions or the potential limited ability to generalize findings. Our results highlight the need to document SDM benefits and consider the specific contextual challenges, such as the level of uncertainty or whether evidence supports recommending/not recommending screening, when implementing SDM across an array of cancer screening

Evidence summaries (decision boxes) to prepare clinicians for shared decision-making with patients: a mixed methods implementation study.

PubMed

Giguere, Anik M C; Labrecque, Michel; Haynes, R Brian; Grad, Roland; Pluye, Pierre; Légaré, France; Cauchon, Michel; Greenway, Matthew; Carmichael, Pierre-Hugues

2014-10-05

Decision boxes (Dboxes) provide clinicians with research evidence about management options for medical questions that have no single best answer. Dboxes fulfil a need for rapid clinical training tools to prepare clinicians for clinician-patient communication and shared decision-making. We studied the barriers and facilitators to using the Dbox information in clinical practice. We used a mixed methods study with sequential explanatory design. We recruited family physicians, residents, and nurses from six primary health-care clinics. Participants received eight Dboxes covering various questions by email (one per week). For each Dbox, they completed a web questionnaire to rate clinical relevance and cognitive impact and to assess the determinants of their intention to use what they learned from the Dbox to explain to their patients the advantages and disadvantages of the options, based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Following the 8-week delivery period, we conducted focus groups with clinicians and interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Dbox information. One hundred clinicians completed the web surveys. In 54% of the 496 questionnaires completed, they reported that their practice would be improved after having read the Dboxes, and in 40%, they stated that they would use this information for their patients. Of those who would use the information for their patients, 89% expected it would benefit their patients, especially in that it would allow the patient to make a decision more in keeping with his/her personal circumstances, values, and preferences. They intended to use the Dboxes in practice (mean 5.6±1.2, scale 1-7, with 7 being "high"), and their intention was significantly related to social norm, perceived behavioural control, and attitude according to the TPB (P<0.0001). In focus groups, clinicians mentioned that co-interventions such as patient decision aids and training in shared decision

Patients' preferences regarding shared decision-making in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: results from a patient-empowerment study.

PubMed

Baars, Judith E; Markus, Tineke; Kuipers, Ernst J; van der Woude, C Janneke

2010-01-01

Shared decision-making is gaining favor in clinical practice, although the extent to which patients want to be involved in choosing their treatment varies substantially. Because data are lacking on the preferences of patients with chronic diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we wanted to assess IBD patients' preferences about being involved in such decisions. Adult IBD patients were asked to anonymously complete an online survey on their preferences. Non-parametric tests (chi(2)) were used to determine the relationship between responses and respondents. The questionnaire was completed by 1,067 patients, 617 with Crohn's disease and 450 with ulcerative colitis. Patients' mean age was 43 (SD 13.7) years; the majority were female (66%). In total, 866 patients (81%) reported it as 'very important' to be actively involved in the decision-making process, and another 177 (17%) rated it as 'quite important'. When asked how their treatment could be improved, 537 patients (50%) wanted close, equitable collaboration with their physician. This preference was significantly associated with a disease duration of decision-making process. Further research is needed on physicians' perspectives on shared decision-making, and on finding predictive factors for developing a model for shared decision-making in IBD. Copyright (c) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Capturing information needs of care providers to support knowledge sharing and distributed decision making.

PubMed

Rogers, M; Zach, L; An, Y; Dalrymple, P

2012-01-01

This paper reports on work carried out to elicit information needs at a trans-disciplinary, nurse-managed health care clinic that serves a medically disadvantaged urban population. The trans-disciplinary model provides a "one-stop shop" for patients who can receive a wide range of services beyond traditional primary care. However, this model of health care presents knowledge sharing challenges because little is known about how data collected from the non-traditional services can be integrated into the traditional electronic medical record (EMR) and shared with other care providers. There is also little known about how health information technology (HIT) can be used to support the workflow in such a practice. The objective of this case study was to identify the information needs of care providers in order to inform the design of HIT to support knowledge sharing and distributed decision making. A participatory design approach is presented as a successful technique to specify requirements for HIT applications that can support a trans-disciplinary model of care. Using this design approach, the researchers identified the information needs of care providers working at the clinic and suggested HIT improvements to integrate non-traditional information into the EMR. These modifications allow knowledge sharing among care providers and support better health decisions. We have identified information needs of care providers as they are relevant to the design of health information systems. As new technology is designed and integrated into various workflows it is clear that understanding information needs is crucial to acceptance of that technology.

[Improving shared decision-making for hospital patients: Description and evaluation of a treatment intensity assessment tool].

PubMed

Amblàs-Novellas, Jordi; Casas, Sílvia; Catalán, Rosa María; Oriol-Ruscalleda, Margarita; Lucchetti, Gianni Enrico; Quer-Vall, Francesc Xavier

2016-01-01

Shared decision-making between patients and healthcare professionals is crucial to guarantee adequate coherence between patient values and preferences, caring aims and treatment intensity, which is key for the provision of patient-centred healthcare. The assessment of such interventions are essential for caring continuity purposes. To do this, reliable and easy-to-use assessment systems are required. This study describes the results of the implementation of a hospital treatment intensity assessment tool. The pre-implementation and post-implementation results were compared between two cohorts of patients assessed for one month. Some record of care was registered in 6.1% of patients in the pre-implementation group (n=673) compared to 31.6% of patients in the post-implementation group (n=832) (P<.01), with differences between services. Hospital mortality in both cohorts is 1.9%; in the pre-implementation group, 93.75% of deceased patients had treatment intensity assessment. In hospital settings, the availability of a specific tool seems to encourage very significantly shared decision-making processes between patients and healthcare professionals -multiplying by more than 5 times the treatment intensity assessment. Moreover, such tools help in the caring continuity processes between different teams and the personalisation of caring interventions to be monitored. More research is needed to continue improving shared decision-making for hospital patients. Copyright © 2015 SEGG. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.

Beyond shared decision-making: Collaboration in the age of recovery from serious mental illness.

PubMed

Treichler, Emily B H; Spaulding, William D

2017-01-01

The role that people with serious mental illness (SMI) play in making decisions about their own treatment and rehabilitation is attracting increasing attention and scrutiny. This attention is embedded in a broader social/consumer movement, the recovery movement , whose agenda includes extensive reform of the mental health system and advancing respect for the dignity and autonomy of people with SMI. Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach for enhancing consumer participation in health-care decision-making. SDM translates straightforwardly to specific clinical procedures that systematically identify domains of decision-making and guide the practitioner and consumer through making the decisions. In addition, Collaborative decision-making (CDM) is a set of guiding principles that avoids the connotations and limitations of SDM. CDM looks broadly at the range of decisions to be made in mental health care, and assigns consumers and providers equal responsibility and power in the decision-making process. It recognizes the diverse history, knowledge base, and values of each consumer by assuming patients can lead and contribute to decision-making, contributing both value-based information and technical information. This article further discusses the importance of CDM for people with SMI. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Shared decision-making in neonatology: an utopia or an attainable goal?

PubMed

D'Aloja, Ernesto; Floris, Laura; Muller, Mima; Birocchi, Francesca; Fanos, Vassilios; Paribello, Francesco; Demontis, Roberto

2010-10-01

Medical decision making is sometimes considered as a relatively simple process in which a decision may be made by the physician, by the patient, or by both patient and physician working together. There are three main models of decision making--paternalism, patient informed choice, and shared decision-making (SDM), having each one of these drawbacks and limitations. Historically, the most adopted one was the paternalism (strongly 'Doctor knows best'), where the professional made the decision based on what he/she considered to be as the patient's best interest, not necessarily contemplating patient's will and wishes. Currently, at the antipodes, the patient informed choice, where the patient makes his/her decision based on information received from the physician with no possible interference of professional's own preferences, seems to be the preferred relationship standard. SDM represents an intermediate approach between the two above-mentioned opposite models, being a medical process that involves actively the doctor and the patient who both bring their own facts and preferences to reach an agreement on the decision on if, when and how to treat a disease. This model, being characterized by elements pertaining to both the others, is gaining popularity in several medical and surgical scenarios whenever a competent patient is able to actively participate into the decisional process. On this basis can this model be implemented also in a Neonatology Intensive Care Unit where little patients are--by nature--incompetent, being the diagnostic/therapeutic choices taken by parents? We focused on this complex item considering four possible different scenarios and it seems to us that it could be possible to introduce such an approach, providing that parents' empowerment, a good physician's communication skill and consideration of all cultural, religious, economic, and ethic values of every single actor have been fairly taken into account.

Shared decision-making using personal health record technology: a scoping review at the crossroads.

PubMed

Davis, Selena; Roudsari, Abdul; Raworth, Rebecca; Courtney, Karen L; MacKay, Lee

2017-07-01

This scoping review aims to determine the size and scope of the published literature on shared decision-making (SDM) using personal health record (PHR) technology and to map the literature in terms of system design and outcomes. Literature from Medline, Google Scholar, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Engineering Village, and Web of Science (2005-2015) using the search terms "personal health records," "shared decision making," "patient-provider communication," "decision aid," and "decision support" was included. Articles ( n  = 38) addressed the efficacy or effectiveness of PHRs for SDM in engaging patients in self-care and decision-making or ways patients can be supported in SDM via PHR. Analysis resulted in an integrated SDM-PHR conceptual framework. An increased interest in SDM via PHR is apparent, with 55% of articles published within last 3 years. Sixty percent of the literature originates from the United States. Twenty-six articles address a particular clinical condition, with 10 focused on diabetes, and one-third offer empirical evidence of patient outcomes. The tethered and standalone PHR architectural types were most studied, while the interconnected PHR type was the focus of more recently published methodological approaches and discussion articles. The study reveals a scarcity of rigorous research on SDM via PHR. Research has focused on one or a few of the SDM elements and not on the intended complete process. Just as PHR technology designed on an interconnected architecture has the potential to facilitate SDM, integrating the SDM process into PHR technology has the potential to drive PHR value. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Prostate Cancer Patients' Understanding of the Gleason Scoring System: Implications for Shared Decision-Making.

PubMed

Tagai, Erin K; Miller, Suzanne M; Kutikov, Alexander; Diefenbach, Michael A; Gor, Ronak A; Al-Saleem, Tahseen; Chen, David Y T; Fleszar, Sara; Roy, Gem

2018-01-15

The Gleason scoring system is a key component of a prostate cancer diagnosis, since it indicates disease aggressiveness. It also serves as a risk communication tool that facilitates shared treatment decision-making. However, the system is highly complex and therefore difficult to communicate: factors which have been shown to undermine well-informed and high-quality shared treatment decision-making. To systematically explore prostate cancer patients' understanding of the Gleason scoring system (GSS), we assessed knowledge and perceived importance among men who had completed treatment (N = 50). Patients were administered a survey that assessed patient knowledge and patients' perceived importance of the GSS, as well as demographics, medical factors (e.g., Gleason score at diagnosis), and health literacy. Bivariate analyses were conducted to identify associations with patient knowledge and perceived importance of the GSS. The sample was generally well-educated (48% with a bachelor's degree or higher) and health literate (M = 12.9, SD = 2.2, range = 3-15). Despite this, patient knowledge of the GSS was low (M = 1.8, SD = 1.4, range = 1-4). Patients' understanding of the importance of the GSS was moderate (M = 2.8, SD = 1.0, range = 0-4) and was positively associated with GSS knowledge (p < .01). Additionally, GSS knowledge was negatively associated with years since biopsy (p < .05). Age and health literacy were positively associated with patients' perceived importance of the GSS (p < .05), but not with GSS knowledge. Patient knowledge is thus less than optimal and would benefit from enhanced communication to maximize shared treatment decision-making. Future studies are needed to explore the potential utility of a simplified Gleason grading system and improved patient-provider communication.

Core domains of shared decision-making during psychiatric visits: scientific and preference-based discussions.

PubMed

Fukui, Sadaaki; Matthias, Marianne S; Salyers, Michelle P

2015-01-01

Shared decision-making (SDM) is imperative to person-centered care, yet little is known about what aspects of SDM are targeted during psychiatric visits. This secondary data analysis (191 psychiatric visits with 11 providers, coded with a validated SDM coding system) revealed two factors (scientific and preference-based discussions) underlying SDM communication. Preference-based discussion occurred less. Both provider and consumer initiation of SDM elements and decision complexity were associated with greater discussions in both factors, but were more strongly associated with scientific discussion. Longer visit length correlated with only scientific discussion. Providers' understanding of core domains could facilitate engaging consumers in SDM.

Involvement of people with dementia in making decisions about their lives: a qualitative study that appraises shared decision-making concerning daycare.

PubMed

Groen-van de Ven, Leontine; Smits, Carolien; de Graaff, Fuusje; Span, Marijke; Eefsting, Jan; Jukema, Jan; Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra

2017-11-12

To explore how people with dementia, their informal caregivers and their professionals participate in decision making about daycare and to develop a typology of participation trajectories. A qualitative study with a prospective, multiperspective design, based on 244 semistructured interviews, conducted during three interview rounds over the course of a year. Analysis was by means of content analysis and typology construction. Community settings and nursing homes in the Netherlands. 19 people with dementia, 36 of their informal caregivers and 38 of their professionals (including nurses, daycare employees and case managers). The participants' responses related to three critical points in the decision-making trajectory about daycare: (1) the initial positive or negative expectations of daycare; (2) negotiation about trying out daycare by promoting, resisting or attuning to others; and (3) trying daycare, which resulted in positive or negative reactions from people with dementia and led to a decision. The ways in which care networks proceeded through these three critical points resulted in a typology of participation trajectories, including (1) working together positively toward daycare, (2) bringing conflicting perspectives together toward trying daycare and (3) not reaching commitment to try daycare. Shared decision making with people with dementia is possible and requires and adapted process of decision making. Our results show that initial preferences based on information alone may change when people with dementia experience daycare. It is important to have a try-out period so that people with dementia can experience daycare without having to decide whether to continue it. Whereas shared decision making in general aims at moving from initial preferences to informed preferences, professionals should focus more on moving from initial preferences to experienced preferences for people with dementia. Professionals can play a crucial role in facilitating the

Putting informed and shared decision making into practice.

PubMed

Towle, Angela; Godolphin, William; Grams, Garry; Lamarre, Amanda

2006-12-01

To investigate the practice, experiences and views of motivated and trained family physicians as they attempt to implement informed and shared decision making (ISDM) in routine practice and to identify and understand the barriers they encounter. Patient involvement in decision making about their health care has been the focus of much academic activity. Although significant conceptual and experimental work has been done, ISDM rarely occurs. Physician attitudes and lack of training are identified barriers. Qualitative analysis of transcripts of consultations and key informant group interviews. Six family physicians received training in the ISDM competencies. Audiotapes of office consultations were made before and after training. Transcripts of consultations were examined to identify behavioural markers associated with each competency and the range of expression of the competencies. The physicians attended group interviews at the end of the study to explore experiences of ISDM. The physicians liked the ISDM model and thought that they should put it into practice. Evidence from transcripts indicated they were able to elicit concerns, ideas and expectations (although not about management) and agree an action plan. They did not elicit preferences for role or information. They sometimes offered choices. They had difficulty achieving full expression of any of the competencies and integrating ISDM into their script for the medical interview. The study also identified a variety of competency-specific barriers. A major barrier to the practice of ISDM by motivated physicians appears to be the need to change well-established patterns of communication with patients.

Recent Advances in Shared Decision Making for Mental Health

PubMed Central

Patel, Sapana R.; Bakken, Suzanne; Ruland, Cornelia

2009-01-01

Purpose of review To advance integration of shared decision making (SDM) into mental health care service delivery, researchers have outlined several priorities for future research [2–3]. These include: 1) SDM and its role in mental health care; 2) Patient and provider perspectives on SDM; 3) The degree to which SDM is practice in mental health settings; and 4) Outcomes of SDM in mental health populations. This article will review recent advances in these areas. Recent findings The current literature shows that 1) SDM can play a role in the mental health treatment process from entry into care to recovery; 2) Patients and providers find SDM acceptable and express a willingness to engage in SDM for reasons that are multifactorial; 3) Barriers to SDM exist in mental health decision making including patient preferences and provider level biases; and 4) Outcomes research provide encouraging preliminary evidence for feasibility and effectiveness of SDM during the mental health encounter. Summary Although there have not been a great number of SDM studies in mental health to date, the positive effects of SDM are comparable to those documented in general non-mental health patient groups, suggesting that future research is likely to be helpful for patients with psychiatric disorders. PMID:18852569

"Teacher, Teacher, Tell Us about the Brain!" Sharing Decision Making about Curriculum in Preschool

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Verwys, Susan K.

2007-01-01

In this article, the author presents a discussion regarding the sharing of decision making regarding curriculum in preschool. The preschool where she teaches is housed in a diverse, faith-based elementary school in the heart of Grand Rapids, Michigan, a midsize, midwestern city. It offers full-day, half-day, and two-and-a-half-hour preschool…

Use of a Shared Mental Model by a Team Composed of Oncology, Palliative Care, and Supportive Care Clinicians to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in a Patient With Advanced Cancer.

PubMed

D'Ambruoso, Sarah F; Coscarelli, Anne; Hurvitz, Sara; Wenger, Neil; Coniglio, David; Donaldson, Dusty; Pietras, Christopher; Walling, Anne M

2016-11-01

Our case describes the efforts of team members drawn from oncology, palliative care, supportive care, and primary care to assist a woman with advanced cancer in accepting care for her psychosocial distress, integrating prognostic information so that she could share in decisions about treatment planning, involving family in her care, and ultimately transitioning to hospice. Team members in our setting included a medical oncologist, oncology nurse practitioner, palliative care nurse practitioner, oncology social worker, and primary care physician. The core members were the patient and her sister. Our team grew organically as a result of patient need and, in doing so, operationalized an explicitly shared understanding of care priorities. We refer to this shared understanding as a shared mental model for care delivery, which enabled our team to jointly set priorities for care through a series of warm handoffs enabled by the team's close proximity within the same clinic. When care providers outside our integrated team became involved in the case, significant communication gaps exposed the difficulty in extending our shared mental model outside the integrated team framework, leading to inefficiencies in care. Integration of this shared understanding for care and close proximity of team members proved to be key components in facilitating treatment of our patient's burdensome cancer-related distress so that she could more effectively participate in treatment decision making that reflected her goals of care.

Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: the results of a combined analysis of two practice-based randomized controlled trials.

PubMed

Sheridan, Stacey L; Golin, Carol; Bunton, Audrina; Lykes, John B; Schwartz, Bob; McCormack, Lauren; Driscoll, David; Bangdiwala, Shrikant I; Harris, Russell P

2012-11-13

Professional societies recommend shared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening, however, most efforts have promoted informed rather than shared decision making. The objective of this study is to 1) examine the effects of a prostate cancer screening intervention to promote SDM and 2) determine whether framing prostate information in the context of other clearly beneficial men's health services affects decisions. We conducted two separate randomized controlled trials of the same prostate cancer intervention (with or without additional information on more clearly beneficial men's health services). For each trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of 2 internal medicine practices, and their interested physicians and male patients with no prior history of prostate cancer (for a total of 4 practices, 28 physicians, and 128 men across trials). Within each practice site, we randomized men to either 1) a video-based decision aid and researcher-led coaching session or 2) a highway safety video. Physicians at each site received a 1-hour educational session on prostate cancer and SDM. To assess intervention effects, we measured key components of SDM, intent to be screened, and actual screening. After finding that results did not vary by trial, we combined data across sites, adjusting for the random effects of both practice and physician. Compared to an attention control, our prostate cancer screening intervention increased men's perceptions that screening is a decision (absolute difference +41%; 95% CI 25 to 57%) and men's knowledge about prostate cancer screening (absolute difference +34%; 95% CI 19% to 50%), but had no effect on men's self-reported participation in shared decisions or their participation at their preferred level. Overall, the intervention decreased screening intent (absolute difference -34%; 95% CI -50% to -18%) and actual screening rates (absolute difference -22%; 95% CI -38 to -7%) with no difference in effect by frame. SDM interventions can

Involved, inputting or informing: "Shared" decision making in adult mental health care.

PubMed

Bradley, Eleanor; Green, Debra

2018-02-01

A diagnosis of serious mental illness can impact on the whole family. Families informally provide significant amounts of care but are disproportionately at risk of carer burden when compared to those supporting people with other long-term conditions. Shared decision making (SDM) is an ethical model of health communication associated with positive health outcomes; however, there has been little research to evaluate how routinely family is invited to participate in SDM, or what this looks like in practice. This UK study aimed to better understand how the family caregivers of those diagnosed with SMI are currently involved in decision making, particularly decisions about treatment options including prescribed medication. Objectives were to Explore the extent to which family members wish to be involved in decisions about prescribed medication Determine how and when professionals engage family in these decisions Identify barriers and facilitators associated with the engagement of family in decisions about treatment. Open-ended questions were sent to professionals and family members to elicit written responses. Qualitative responses were analysed thematically. Themes included the definition of involvement and "rules of engagement." Staff members are gatekeepers for family involvement, and the process is not democratic. Family and staff ascribe practical, rather than recovery-oriented roles to family, with pre-occupation around notions of adherence. Staff members need support, training and education to apply SDM. Time to exchange information is vital but practically difficult. Negotiated teams, comprising of staff, service users, family, peers as applicable, with ascribed roles and responsibilities could support SDM. © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Inconsistencies in patient perceptions and observer ratings of shared decision making: the case of colorectal cancer screening.

PubMed

Wunderlich, Tracy; Cooper, Gregory; Divine, George; Flocke, Susan; Oja-Tebbe, Nancy; Stange, Kurt; Lafata, Jennifer Elston

2010-09-01

To compare patient-reported and observer-rated shared decision making (SDM) use for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and evaluate patient, physician and patient-reported relational communication factors associated with patient-reported use of shared CRC screening decisions. Study physicians are salaried primary care providers. Patients are insured, aged 50-80 and due for CRC screening. Audio-recordings from 363 primary care visits were observer-coded for elements of SDM. A post-visit patient survey assessed patient-reported decision-making processes and relational communication during visit. Association of patient-reported SDM with observer-rated elements of SDM, as well as patient, physician and relational communication factors were evaluated using generalized estimating equations. 70% of patients preferred SDM for preventive health decisions, 47% of patients reported use of a SDM process, and only one of the screening discussions included all four elements of SDM per observer ratings. Patient report of SDM use was not associated with observer-rated elements of SDM, but was significantly associated with female physician gender and patient-reported relational communication. Inconsistencies exist between patient reports and observer ratings of SDM for CRC screening. Future studies are needed to understand whether SDM that is patient-reported, observer-rated or both are associated with informed and value-concordant CRC screening decisions. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Inconsistencies in Patient Perceptions and Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making: The Case of Colorectal Cancer Screening

PubMed Central

Wunderlich, Tracy; Cooper, Gregory; Divine, George; Flocke, Susan; Oja-Tebbe, Nancy; Stange, Kurt; Lafata, Jennifer Elston

2010-01-01

Objective To compare patient-reported and observer-rated shared decision making (SDM) use for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and evaluate patient, physician and patient-reported relational communication factors associated with patient-reported use of shared CRC screening decisions. Methods Study physicians are salaried primary care providers. Patients are insured, aged 50-80 and due for CRC screening. Audio-recordings from 363 primary care visits were observer-coded for elements of SDM. A post-visit patient survey assessed patient-reported decision-making processes and relational communication during visit. Association of patient-reported SDM with observer-rated elements of SDM, as well as patient, physician and relational communication factors were evaluated using generalized estimating equations. Results 70% of patients preferred SDM for preventive health decisions, 47% of patients reported use of a SDM process, and only one of the screening discussions included all four elements of SDM per observer ratings. Patient report of SDM use was not associated with observer-rated elements of SDM, but was significantly associated with female physician gender and patient-reported relational communication. Conclusion Inconsistencies exist between patient reports and observer ratings of SDM for CRC screening. Practice Implications Future studies are needed to understand whether SDM that is patient-reported, observer-rated or both are associated with informed and value-concordant CRC screening decisions. PMID:20667678

Barriers and Promoters to Participation in the Era of Shared Treatment Decision-Making.

PubMed

McCarter, Sarah P; Tariman, Joseph D; Spawn, Nadia; Mehmeti, Enisa; Bishop-Royse, Jessica; Garcia, Ima; Hartle, Lisa; Szubski, Katharine

2016-10-01

This study aimed to identify the barriers and promoters for participation in cancer treatment decision in the era of shared decision-making (SDM) process. A qualitative design was utilized. Nineteen nurses and 11 nurse practitioners from oncology inpatient and outpatient settings participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis. The findings include practice barrier, patient barrier, institutional policy barrier, professional barrier, scope of practice barrier, insurance coverage barrier, and administrative barrier. Multidisciplinary team approach, having a nursing voice during SDM, high level of knowledge of the disease and treatment, and personal valuation of SDM participation were perceived as promoters. Oncology nurses and nurse practitioners face many barriers to their participation during SDM. Organizational support and system-wide culture of SDM are essential to achieve better cancer treatment decisions outcome. Additional studies are needed to determine the factors that can promote more participation among nurses and nurse practitioners. © The Author(s) 2016.

Shared decision making for psychiatric medication management: beyond the micro-social.

PubMed

Morant, Nicola; Kaminskiy, Emma; Ramon, Shulamit

2016-10-01

Mental health care has lagged behind other health-care domains in developing and applying shared decision making (SDM) for treatment decisions. This is despite compatibilities with ideals of modern mental health care such as self-management and recovery-oriented practice, and growing policy-level interest. Psychiatric medication is a mainstay of mental health treatment, but there are known problems with prescribing practices, and service users report feeling uninvolved in medication decisions and concerned about adverse effects. SDM has potential to produce better tailoring of psychiatric medication to individuals' needs. This conceptual review argues that several aspects of mental health care that differ from other health-care contexts (e.g. forms of coercion, questions about service users' insight and disempowerment) may impact on processes and possibilities for SDM. It is therefore problematic to uncritically import models of SDM developed in other health-care contexts. We argue that decision making for psychiatric medication is better understood in a broader way that moves beyond the micro-social focus of a medical consultation. Contextualizing specific medication-related consultations within longer term relationships, and broader service systems enables recognition of the multiple processes, actors and agendas that shape how psychiatric medication is prescribed, managed and used, and which may facilitate or impede SDM. A broad conceptualization of decision making for psychiatric medication that moves beyond the micro-social can account for why SDM in this domain remains a rarity. It has both conceptual and practical utility for evaluating research evidence, identifying future research priorities and highlighting fruitful ways of developing and implementing SDM in mental health care. © 2015 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Supportive Care: Communication Strategies to Improve Cultural Competence in Shared Decision Making.

PubMed

Brown, Edwina A; Bekker, Hilary L; Davison, Sara N; Koffman, Jonathan; Schell, Jane O

2016-10-07

Historic migration and the ever-increasing current migration into Western countries have greatly changed the ethnic and cultural patterns of patient populations. Because health care beliefs of minority groups may follow their religion and country of origin, inevitable conflict can arise with decision making at the end of life. The principles of truth telling and patient autonomy are embedded in the framework of Anglo-American medical ethics. In contrast, in many parts of the world, the cultural norm is protection of the patient from the truth, decision making by the family, and a tradition of familial piety, where it is dishonorable not to do as much as possible for parents. The challenge for health care professionals is to understand how culture has enormous potential to influence patients' responses to medical issues, such as healing and suffering, as well as the physician-patient relationship. Our paper provides a framework of communication strategies that enhance crosscultural competency within nephrology teams. Shared decision making also enables clinicians to be culturally competent communicators by providing a model where clinicians and patients jointly consider best clinical evidence in light of a patient's specific health characteristics and values when choosing health care. The development of decision aids to include cultural awareness could avoid conflict proactively, more productively address it when it occurs, and enable decision making within the framework of the patient and family cultural beliefs. Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Nephrology.

Publication trends of shared decision making in 15 high impact medical journals: a full-text review with bibliometric analysis

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background Shared Decision Making (SDM) is increasingly advocated as a model for medical decision making. However, there is still low use of SDM in clinical practice. High impact factor journals might represent an efficient way for its dissemination. We aimed to identify and characterize publication trends of SDM in 15 high impact medical journals. Methods We selected the 15 general and internal medicine journals with the highest impact factor publishing original articles, letters and editorials. We retrieved publications from 1996 to 2011 through the full-text search function on each journal website and abstracted bibliometric data. We included publications of any type containing the phrase “shared decision making” or five other variants in their abstract or full text. These were referred to as SDM publications. A polynomial Poisson regression model with logarithmic link function was used to assess the evolution across the period of the number of SDM publications according to publication characteristics. Results We identified 1285 SDM publications out of 229,179 publications in 15 journals from 1996 to 2011. The absolute number of SDM publications by journal ranged from 2 to 273 over 16 years. SDM publications increased both in absolute and relative numbers per year, from 46 (0.32% relative to all publications from the 15 journals) in 1996 to 165 (1.17%) in 2011. This growth was exponential (P < 0.01). We found fewer research publications (465, 36.2% of all SDM publications) than non-research publications, which included non-systematic reviews, letters, and editorials. The increase of research publications across time was linear. Full-text search retrieved ten times more SDM publications than a similar PubMed search (1285 vs. 119 respectively). Conclusion This review in full-text showed that SDM publications increased exponentially in major medical journals from 1996 to 2011. This growth might reflect an increased dissemination of the SDM concept to the

The CHOICE pilot project: Challenges of implementing a combined peer work and shared decision-making programme in an early intervention service.

PubMed

Simmons, Magenta B; Coates, Dominiek; Batchelor, Samantha; Dimopoulos-Bick, Tara; Howe, Deborah

2017-12-12

Youth participation is central to early intervention policy and quality frameworks. There is good evidence for peer support (individuals with lived experience helping other consumers) and shared decision making (involving consumers in making decisions about their own care) in adult settings. However, youth programs are rarely tested or described in detail. This report aims to fill this gap by describing a consumer focused intervention in an early intervention service. This paper describes the development process, intervention content and implementation challenges of the Choices about Healthcare Options Informed by Client Experiences and Expectations (CHOICE) Pilot Project. This highly novel and innovative project combined both youth peer work and youth shared decision making. Eight peer workers were employed to deliver an online shared decision-making tool at a youth mental health service in New South Wales, Australia. The intervention development involved best practice principles, including international standards and elements of co-design. The implementation of the peer workforce in the service involved a number of targeted strategies designed to support this new service model. However, several implementation challenges were experienced which resulted in critical learning about how best to deliver these types of interventions. Delivering peer work and shared decision making within an early intervention service is feasible, but not without challenges. Providing adequate detail about interventions and implementation strategies fills a critical gap in the literature. Understanding optimal youth involvement strategies assists others to deliver acceptable and effective services to young people who experience mental ill health. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

A Web-Based Tool to Support Shared Decision Making for People With a Psychotic Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial and Process Evaluation

PubMed Central

Emerencia, Ando C; Boonstra, Nynke; Wunderink, Lex; de Jonge, Peter; Sytema, Sjoerd

2013-01-01

Background Mental health policy makers encourage the development of electronic decision aids to increase patient participation in medical decision making. Evidence is needed to determine whether these decision aids are helpful in clinical practice and whether they lead to increased patient involvement and better outcomes. Objective This study reports the outcome of a randomized controlled trial and process evaluation of a Web-based intervention to facilitate shared decision making for people with psychotic disorders. Methods The study was carried out in a Dutch mental health institution. Patients were recruited from 2 outpatient teams for patients with psychosis (N=250). Patients in the intervention condition (n=124) were provided an account to access a Web-based information and decision tool aimed to support patients in acquiring an overview of their needs and appropriate treatment options provided by their mental health care organization. Patients were given the opportunity to use the Web-based tool either on their own (at their home computer or at a computer of the service) or with the support of an assistant. Patients in the control group received care as usual (n=126). Half of the patients in the sample were patients experiencing a first episode of psychosis; the other half were patients with a chronic psychosis. Primary outcome was patient-perceived involvement in medical decision making, measured with the Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication and Treatment Decision-making Effectiveness (COMRADE). Process evaluation consisted of questionnaire-based surveys, open interviews, and researcher observation. Results In all, 73 patients completed the follow-up measurement and were included in the final analysis (response rate 29.2%). More than one-third (48/124, 38.7%) of the patients who were provided access to the Web-based decision aid used it, and most used its full functionality. No differences were found between the intervention and control conditions

Supporting shared decision making using an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee in an interface musculoskeletal clinic: A stepped wedge trial.

PubMed

Elwyn, Glyn; Pickles, Tim; Edwards, Adrian; Kinsey, Katharine; Brain, Kate; Newcombe, Robert G; Firth, Jill; Marrin, Katy; Nye, Alan; Wood, Fiona

2016-04-01

To evaluate whether introducing tools, specifically designed for use in clinical encounters, namely Option Grids, into a clinical practice setting leads to higher levels of shared decision making. A stepped wedge trial design where 6 physiotherapists at an interface clinic in Oldham, UK, were sequentially instructed in how to use an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee. Patients with suspected or confirmed osteoarthritis of the knee were recruited, six per clinician prior to instruction, and six per clinician afterwards. We measured shared decision making, patient knowledge, and readiness to decide. A total of 72 patients were recruited; 36 were allocated to the intervention group. There was an 8.4 point (95% CI 4.4 to 12.2) increase in the Observer OPTION score (range 0-100) in the intervention group. The mean gain in knowledge was 0.9 points (score range 0-5, 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5). There was no increase in encounter duration. Shared decision making increased when clinicians used the knee osteoarthritis Option Grid. Tools designed to support collaboration and deliberation about treatment options lead to increased levels of shared decision making. Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Interspecific shared collective decision-making in two forensically important species.

PubMed

Boulay, Julien; Deneubourg, Jean-Louis; Hédouin, Valéry; Charabidzé, Damien

2016-02-10

To date, the study of collective behaviour has mainly focused on intraspecific situations: the collective decision-making of mixed-species groups involving interspecific aggregation-segregation has received little attention. Here, we show that, in both conspecific and heterospecific groups, the larvae of two species (Lucilia sericata and Calliphora vomitoria, calliphorid carrion-feeding flies) were able to make a collective choice. In all groups, the choice was made within a few minutes and persisted throughout the period of the experiment. The monitoring of a focal individual within a group showed that these aggregations were governed by attractive and retentive effects of the group. Furthermore, the similarity observed between the conspecific and heterospecific groups suggested the existence of shared aggregation signals. The group size was found to have a stronger influence than the species of necrophagous larvae. These results should be viewed in relation to the well-known correlation between group size and heat generation. This study provides the first experimental examination of the dynamics of collective decision-making in mixed-species groups of invertebrates, contributing to our understanding of the cooperation-competition phenomenon in animal social groups. © 2016 The Author(s).

Putting informed and shared decision making into practice

PubMed Central

Towle, Angela; Godolphin, William; Grams, Garry; LaMarre, Amanda

2006-01-01

Abstract Objective  To investigate the practice, experiences and views of motivated and trained family physicians as they attempt to implement informed and shared decision making (ISDM) in routine practice and to identify and understand the barriers they encounter. Background  Patient involvement in decision making about their health care has been the focus of much academic activity. Although significant conceptual and experimental work has been done, ISDM rarely occurs. Physician attitudes and lack of training are identified barriers. Design  Qualitative analysis of transcripts of consultations and key informant group interviews. Settings and participants  Six family physicians received training in the ISDM competencies. Audiotapes of office consultations were made before and after training. Transcripts of consultations were examined to identify behavioural markers associated with each competency and the range of expression of the competencies. The physicians attended group interviews at the end of the study to explore experiences of ISDM. Results  The physicians liked the ISDM model and thought that they should put it into practice. Evidence from transcripts indicated they were able to elicit concerns, ideas and expectations (although not about management) and agree an action plan. They did not elicit preferences for role or information. They sometimes offered choices. They had difficulty achieving full expression of any of the competencies and integrating ISDM into their script for the medical interview. The study also identified a variety of competency‐specific barriers. Conclusion  A major barrier to the practice of ISDM by motivated physicians appears to be the need to change well‐established patterns of communication with patients. PMID:17083559

School-Based Management/Shared Decision-Making: A Study of School Reform in New York City.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Jewell, Kenneth E.; Rosen, Jacqueline L.

School-Based Management/Shared Decision Making is a city-wide program supported by New York City Schools in collaboration with Bank Street College, based on the belief that students, parents, school staff, and communities have unique needs, and that these needs can best be addressed by these persons. Participating schools formed teams of…

Perceived involvement and preferences in shared decision-making among patients with hypertension.

PubMed

Mah, Hui Chin; Muthupalaniappen, Leelavathi; Chong, Wei Wen

2016-06-01

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an important component of patient-centred care. However, there is limited information on its implementation in Malaysia, particularly in chronic diseases such as hypertension. The objective of this study was to examine perceived involvement and role preferences of patients with hypertension in treatment decision-making. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 210 patients with hypertension in a teaching hospital in Malaysia. The majority of respondents agreed that their doctor recognized that a decision needs to be made (89.5%) and informed them that different options are available (77.1%). However, respondents' perceived level of involvement in other aspects of treatment decision-making process was low, including in the selection of treatment and in reaching an agreement with their doctor on how to proceed with treatment. In terms of preferred decision-making roles, 51.4% of respondents preferred a collaborative role with their physicians, 44.8% preferred a passive role while only 1.9% preferred an active role. Age and educational level were found to be significantly related to patient preferences for involvement in SDM. Younger patients (<60 years) and those with higher educational level preferred SDM over passive decision-making (ρ < 0.01). Encouragement from health care providers was perceived as a major motivating factor for SDM among patients with hypertension, with 91% of respondents agreeing that this would motivate their participation in SDM. Preferences for involvement in decision-making among patients with hypertension are varied, and influenced by age and educational level. Physicians have a key role in encouraging patients to participate in SDM. © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Shared decision-making and choice for elective surgical care: A systematic review

PubMed Central

Boss, Emily F.; Mehta, Nishchay; Nagarajan, Neeraja; Links, Anne; Benke, James R.; Berger, Zackary; Espinel, Ali; Meier, Jeremy; Lipstein, Ellen A.

2016-01-01

Objective Shared Decision-Making (SDM), an integrative patient-provider communication process emphasizing discussion of scientific evidence and patient/family values, may improve quality care delivery, promote evidence-based practice, and reduce overuse of surgical care. Little is known however regarding SDM in elective surgical practice. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize findings of studies evaluating use and outcomes of SDM in elective surgery. Data Sources Pubmed, CochraneCENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS electronic databases Review Methods We searched for English-language studies (1/1/1990 to 8/9/2015) evaluating use of SDM in elective surgical care. Identified studies were independently screened by two reviewers in stages of title/abstract and full-text review. We abstracted data related to population, study design, clinical dilemma, use of SDM, outcomes, treatment choice, and bias. Results Of 10,929 identified articles, 24 met inclusion criteria. The most common area studied was spine (7/24) followed by joint (5/24) and gynecological surgery (4/24). Twenty studies used decision aids/support tools, including modalities that were multimedia/video (13/20), written (3/20), or personal coaching (4/20). Effect of SDM on preference for surgery were mixed across studies, showing a decrease in surgery (9/24), no difference (8/24), or increase (1/24). SDM tended to improve decision quality (3/3) as well as knowledge/preparation (4/6), while decreasing decision conflict (4/6). Conclusion SDM reduces decision conflict and improves decision quality for patients making choices about elective surgery. While net findings show that SDM may influence patients to choose surgery less often, the impact of SDM on surgical utilization cannot be clearly ascertained. PMID:26645531

The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review.

PubMed

Gärtner, Fania R; Bomhof-Roordink, Hanna; Smith, Ian P; Scholl, Isabelle; Stiggelbout, Anne M; Pieterse, Arwen H

2018-01-01

To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies. In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397. We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated. Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument's content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of existing instruments, and the use of COSMIN

The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review

PubMed Central

Bomhof-Roordink, Hanna; Smith, Ian P.; Scholl, Isabelle; Stiggelbout, Anne M.; Pieterse, Arwen H.

2018-01-01

Objective To inventory instruments assessing the process of shared decision making and appraise their measurement quality, taking into account the methodological quality of their validation studies. Methods In a systematic review we searched seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier) for studies investigating instruments measuring the process of shared decision making. Per identified instrument, we assessed the level of evidence separately for 10 measurement properties following a three-step procedure: 1) appraisal of the methodological quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, 2) appraisal of the psychometric quality of the measurement property using three possible quality scores, 3) best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological and psychometrical quality, and the direction and consistency of the results. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO: CRD42015023397. Results We included 51 articles describing the development and/or evaluation of 40 shared decision-making process instruments: 16 patient questionnaires, 4 provider questionnaires, 18 coding schemes and 2 instruments measuring multiple perspectives. There is an overall lack of evidence for their measurement quality, either because validation is missing or methods are poor. The best-evidence synthesis indicated positive results for a major part of instruments for content validity (50%) and structural validity (53%) if these were evaluated, but negative results for a major part of instruments when inter-rater reliability (47%) and hypotheses testing (59%) were evaluated. Conclusions Due to the lack of evidence on measurement quality, the choice for the most appropriate instrument can best be based on the instrument’s content and characteristics such as the perspective that they assess. We recommend refinement and validation of

A Mobile Phone App to Support Young People in Making Shared Decisions in Therapy (Power Up): Study Protocol.

PubMed

Chapman, Louise; Edbrooke-Childs, Julian; Martin, Kate; Webber, Helen; Craven, Michael P; Hollis, Chris; Deighton, Jessica; Law, Roslyn; Fonagy, Peter; Wolpert, Miranda

2017-10-30

Evidence suggests that young people want to be active participants in their care and involved in decisions about their treatment. However, there is a lack of digital shared decision-making tools available to support young people in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). The primary aim of this paper is to present the protocol of a feasibility trial for Power Up, a mobile phone app to empower young people in CAMHS to make their voices heard and participate in decisions around their care. In the development phase, 30 young people, parents, and clinicians will take part in interviews and focus groups to elicit opinions on an early version of the app. In the feasibility testing phase, 60 young people from across 7 to 10 London CAMHS sites will take part in a trial looking at the feasibility and acceptability of measuring the impact of Power Up on shared decision making. Data collection for the development phase ended in December 2016. Data collection for the feasibility testing phase will end in December 2017. Findings will inform the planning of a cluster controlled trial and contribute to the development and implementation of a shared decision-making app to be integrated into CAMHS. ISRCTN77194423; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN77194423 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6td6MINP0). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02987608; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02987608 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6td6PNBZM). ©Louise Chapman, Julian Edbrooke-Childs, Kate Martin, Helen Webber, Michael P Craven, Chris Hollis, Jessica Deighton, Roslyn Law, Peter Fonagy, Miranda Wolpert. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 30.10.2017.

Patient Decision Control and the Use of Cardiac Catheterization

PubMed Central

Paasche-Orlow, Michael K.; Orner, Michelle B.; Stewart, Sabrina K.; Kressin, Nancy R.

2015-01-01

Background: Shared decision-making is a key determinant of patient-centered care. A lack of patient involvement in treatment decisions may explain persistent racial disparities in rates of cardiac catheterization (CCATH). To date, limited evidence exists to demonstrate whether patients who engage in shared decision-makingare more or less likely to undergo non-emergency CCATH. Objective: To assess the relationship between participation in the decision to undergo a CCATH and the use of CCATH. We also examined whether preference for or actual engagement in decision-making varied by patient race. Methods: We analyzed data from 826 male Veterans Administration patients for whom CCATH was indicated and who participated in the Cardiac Decision Making Study. Results: After controlling for confounders, patients reporting any degree of decision control were more likely to receive CCATH compared with those reporting no control (doctor made decision without patient input) (54% vs 39%, P<.0001). Across racial groups, patients were equally likely to report a preference for control over decision-making (P=.53) as well as to experience discordance between their preference for control and their perception of the actual decision-making process (P=.59). Therefore, these factors did not mediate racial disparities in rates of CCATH use. Conclusion: Shared decision-making is an essential feature of whole-person care. While participation in decision-making may not explain disparities in CCATH rates, further work is required to identify strategies to improve congruence between patients' desire for and actual control over decision-making to actualize patient-centered care. PMID:26331101

Shared decision making, a buzz-word in the Netherlands, the pace quickens towards nationwide implementation….

PubMed

van der Weijden, Trudy; Post, Heleen; Brand, Paul L P; van Veenendaal, Haske; Drenthen, Ton; van Mierlo, Linda Aj; Stalmeier, Peep; Damman, Olga C; Stiggelbout, Anne

2017-06-01

Currently, shared decision making (SDM) is on the agenda among target patient representative groups, policy makers and professional bodies. Although the International Conference for Shared Decision Making (ISDM) 2011 generated a positive boost, hesitation was also felt among Dutch clinicians, who are challenged by many new tasks. No hesitation is seen among the majority of patients, opting mostly for the SDM model. We haven't reached these patients' needs fully yet, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behaviour. There is plenty of room for improvement in daily practice, for which many best practices are being designed and increasingly implemented, such as national campaigns to empower patients, central governance of patient decision aids that are developed along clinical practice guidelines, postgraduate training, collaborative learning and system changes, and merging goal setting and SDM in complex care. This is explicitly supported by the Dutch government, the Ministry of Health, patient groups, professional bodies and health insurers. The culture shift in the minds and hearts of patients and clinicians has started but is still ongoing. Enthusiasm for this way of working could be undermined if SDM is defined and implemented in a simplistic, dogmatic manner leading to irresponsible transferring of the professionals' uncertainty, responsibility, and decisional stress to patients. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions.

PubMed

Brenner, Alison T; Hoffman, Richard; McWilliams, Andrew; Pignone, Michael P; Rhyne, Robert L; Tapp, Hazel; Weaver, Mark A; Callan, Danelle; de Hernandez, Brisa Urquieta; Harbi, Khalil; Reuland, Daniel S

2016-10-01

Low-income, low-literacy, limited English-proficient populations have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and experience poor patient-provider communication and decision-making processes around screening. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of a CRC screening decision aid on screening-related communication and decision making in primary care visits. RCT with data collected from patients at baseline and immediately after the provider encounter. Patients aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening, were recruited from two safety net clinics in North Carolina and New Mexico (data collection, January 2014-September 2015; analysis, 2015). Participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid or a food safety (control) video immediately before their provider encounter. CRC screening-related knowledge, discussion, intent, test preferences, and test ordering. The study population (N=262) had a mean age of 58.3 years and was 66% female, 61% Latino, 17% non-Latino black, and 16% non-Latino white. Among Latino participants, 71% preferred Spanish. Compared with controls, intervention participants had greater screening-related knowledge (on average 4.6 vs 2.8 of six knowledge items correct, adjusted difference [AD]=1.8, 95% CI=1.5, 2.1) and were more likely to report screening discussion (71.0% vs 45.0%, AD=26.1%, 95% CI=14.3%, 38.0%) and high screening intent (93.1% vs 84.7%, AD=9.0%, 95% CI=2.0%, 16.0%). Intervention participants were more likely to indicate a specific screening test preference (93.1% vs 68.0%, AD=26.5%, 95% CI=17.2%, 35.8%) and to report having a test ordered (56.5% vs 32.1%, AD=25.8%, 95% CI=14.4%, 37.2%). Viewing a CRC screening decision aid before a primary care encounter improves knowledge and shared decision making around screening in a racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse safety net clinic population. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054598. Copyright © 2016 American Journal of Preventive Medicine

High deductible health plans: does cost sharing stimulate increased consumer sophistication?

PubMed

Gupta, Neal; Polsky, Daniel

2015-06-01

To determine whether increased cost sharing in health insurance plans induces higher levels of consumer sophistication in a non-elderly population. This analysis is based on the collection of survey and demographic data collected from enrollees in the RAND health insurance experiment (HIE). During the RAND HIE, enrollees were randomly assigned to different levels of cost sharing (0, 25, 50 and 95%). The study population compromises about 2000 people enrolled in the RAND HIE, between the years 1974 and 1982. Effects on health-care decision making were measured using the results of a standardized questionnaire, administered at the beginning and end of the experiment. Points of enquiry included whether or not enrollees' (i) recognized the need for second opinions (ii) questioned the effectiveness of certain therapies and (iii) researched the background/skill of their medical providers. Consumer sophistication was also measured for regular health-care consumers, as indicated by the presence of a chronic disease. We found no statically significant changes (P < 0.05) in the health-care decision-making strategies between individuals randomized to high cost sharing plans and low cost sharing plans. Furthermore, we did not find a stronger effect for patients with a chronic disease. The evidence from the RAND HIE does not support the hypothesis that a higher level of cost sharing incentivizes the development of consumer sophistication. As a result, cost sharing alone will not promote individuals to become more selective in their health-care decision-making. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

A Model of Organizational Context and Shared Decision Making: Application to LGBT Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients.

PubMed

DeMeester, Rachel H; Lopez, Fanny Y; Moore, Jennifer E; Cook, Scott C; Chin, Marshall H

2016-06-01

Shared decision making (SDM) occurs when patients and clinicians work together to reach care decisions that are both medically sound and responsive to patients' preferences and values. SDM is an important tenet of patient-centered care that can improve patient outcomes. Patients with multiple minority identities, such as sexual orientation and race/ethnicity, are at particular risk for poor SDM. Among these dual-minority patients, added challenges to clear and open communication include cultural barriers, distrust, and a health care provider's lack of awareness of the patient's minority sexual orientation or gender identity. However, organizational factors like a culture of inclusion and private space throughout the visit can improve SDM with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ("LGBT") racial/ethnic minority patients who have faced stigma and discrimination. Most models of shared decision making focus on the patient-provider interaction, but the health care organization's context is also critical. Context-an organization's structure and operations-can strongly influence the ability and willingness of patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making. SDM is most likely to be optimal if organizations transform their contexts and patients and providers improve their communication. Thus, we propose a conceptual model that suggests ways in which organizations can shape their contextual structure and operations to support SDM. The model contains six drivers: workflows, health information technology, organizational structure and culture, resources and clinic environment, training and education, and incentives and disincentives. These drivers work through four mechanisms to impact care: continuity and coordination, the ease of SDM, knowledge and skills, and attitudes and beliefs. These mechanisms can activate clinicians and patients to engage in high-quality SDM. We provide examples of how specific contextual changes could make SDM more effective for LGBT

Shared Problem Models and Crew Decision Making

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Orasanu, Judith; Statler, Irving C. (Technical Monitor)

1994-01-01

The importance of crew decision making to aviation safety has been well established through NTSB accident analyses: Crew judgment and decision making have been cited as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents in commercial air transport, general aviation, and military aviation. Yet the bulk of research on decision making has not proven helpful in improving the quality of decisions in the cockpit. One reason is that traditional analytic decision models are inappropriate to the dynamic complex nature of cockpit decision making and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions. A new model of dynamic naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove more useful for training or aiding cockpit decision making. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulation and National Transportation Safety Board accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation and reflect the crew's metacognitive skill. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relation between communication that serves to build performance. Implications of these findings for crew training will be discussed.

Shared decision making in the management of children with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia.

PubMed

Beck, Carolyn E; Boydell, Katherine M; Stasiulis, Elaine; Blanchette, Victor S; Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary; Birken, Catherine S; Breakey, Vicky R; Parkin, Patricia C

2014-10-01

This study aimed to examine the treatment decision-making process for children hospitalized with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Using focus groups, we studied children with ITP, parents of children with ITP, and health care professionals, inquiring about participants' experience with decision support and decision making in newly diagnosed ITP. Data were examined using thematic analysis. Themes that emerged from children were feelings of "anxiety, fear, and confusion"; the need to "understand information"; and "treatment choice," the experience of which was age dependent. For parents, "anxiety, fear, and confusion" was a dominant theme; "treatment choice" revealed that participants felt directed toward intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) for initial treatment. For health care professionals, "comfort level" highlighted factors contributing to professionals' comfort with offering options; "assumptions" were made about parental desire for participation in shared decision making (SDM) and parental acceptance of treatment options; "providing information" was informative regarding modes of facilitating SDM; and "treatment choice" revealed a discrepancy between current practice (directed toward IVIG) and the ideal of SDM. At our center, families of children with newly diagnosed ITP are not experiencing SDM. Our findings support the implementation of SDM to facilitate patient-centered care for the management of pediatric ITP.

Getting on the same page: Communication, patient involvement and shared understanding of "decisions" in oncology.

PubMed

Leppin, Aaron L; Kunneman, Marleen; Hathaway, Julie; Fernandez, Cara; Montori, Victor M; Tilburt, Jon C

2018-02-01

Patients and clinicians do not often agree on whether a decision has been made about cancer care. This could be explained by factors related to communication quality and/or the type of decision being made. We used a self-developed coding scheme to code a random sample of 128 encounters in which patients and clinicians either agreed (n=64) or disagreed (n=64) that a cancer care decision was made and tested for associations between concordance and key communication behaviours. We also identified and characterized cancer care decisions by topic and level of patient involvement and looked for trends. We identified 378 cancer care decisions across 128 encounters. Explicit decisions were most commonly made about topics wherein decision control could be easily delegated to a clear and present expert (eg either the patient or the clinician). Related to this, level of patient involvement varied significantly by decision topic. Explicit decisions were rarely made in an observable way about social, non-clinical or self-management related topics, although patients and clinicians both reported having made a cancer care decision in encounters where no decisions were observed. We found no association between communication behaviours and concordance in our sample. What counts as a "decision" in cancer care may be constructed within disparate social roles that leave many agendas unaddressed and decisions unmade. Changing the content of conversations to encourage explicit decisions about self-management and life context-related topics may have greater value in enabling shared understanding than promoting communication behaviours among already high-performing communicators. © 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Self-Stigma and Consumer Participation in Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Services.

PubMed

Hamann, Johannes; Bühner, Markus; Rüsch, Nicolas

2017-08-01

People with mental illness struggle with symptoms and with public stigma. Some accept common prejudices and lose self-esteem, resulting in shame and self-stigma, which may affect their interactions with mental health professionals. This study explored whether self-stigma and shame are associated with consumers' preferences for participation in medical decision making and their behavior in psychiatric consultations. In a cross-sectional study conducted in Germany, 329 individuals with a diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder or an affective disorder and their psychiatrists provided sociodemographic and illness-related information. Self-stigma, shame, locus of control, and views about clinical decision making were assessed by self-report. Psychiatrists rated their impression of the decision-making behavior of consumers. Regression analyses and structural equation modeling were used to determine the association of self-stigma and shame with clinical decision making. Self-stigma was not related to consumers' participation preferences, but it was associated with some aspects of communicative behavior. Active and critical behavior (for example, expressing views, daring to challenge the doctor's opinion, and openly speaking out about disagreements with the doctor) was associated with less shame, less self-stigma, more self-responsibility, less attribution of external control to powerful others, and more years of education. Self-stigma and shame were associated with less participative and critical behavior, which probably leads to clinical encounters that involve less shared decision making and more paternalistic decision making. Paternalistic decision making may reinforce self-stigma and lead to poorer health outcomes. Therefore, interventions that reduce self-stigma and increase consumers' critical and participative communication may improve health outcomes.

Development of a Conceptual Framework for Understanding Shared Decision making Among African-American LGBT Patients and their Clinicians.

PubMed

Peek, Monica E; Lopez, Fanny Y; Williams, H Sharif; Xu, Lucy J; McNulty, Moira C; Acree, M Ellen; Schneider, John A

2016-06-01

Enhancing patient-centered care and shared decision making (SDM) has become a national priority as a means of engaging patients in their care, improving treatment adherence, and enhancing health outcomes. Relatively little is known about the healthcare experiences or shared decision making among racial/ethnic minorities who also identify as being LGBT. The purpose of this paper is to understand how race, sexual orientation and gender identity can simultaneously influence SDM among African-American LGBT persons, and to propose a model of SDM between such patients and their healthcare providers. We reviewed key constructs necessary for understanding SDM among African-American LGBT persons, which guided our systematic literature review. Eligible studies for the review included English-language studies of adults (≥ 19 y/o) in North America, with a focus on LGBT persons who were African-American/black (i.e., > 50 % of the study population) or included sub-analyses by sexual orientation/gender identity and race. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases using MESH terms and keywords related to shared decision making, communication quality (e.g., trust, bias), African-Americans, and LGBT persons. Additional references were identified by manual reviews of peer-reviewed journals' tables of contents and key papers' references. We identified 2298 abstracts, three of which met the inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, one was cross-sectional and two were qualitative; one study involved transgender women (91 % minorities, 65 % of whom were African-Americans), and two involved African-American men who have sex with men (MSM). All of the studies focused on HIV infection. Sexual orientation and gender identity were patient-reported factors that negatively impacted patient/provider relationships and SDM. Engaging in SDM helped some patients overcome normative beliefs about clinical encounters. In this paper, we present a

An evidence-based shared decision making programme on the prevention of myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetes: protocol of a randomised-controlled trial.

PubMed

Buhse, Susanne; Heller, Tabitha; Kasper, Jürgen; Mühlhauser, Ingrid; Müller, Ulrich Alfons; Lehmann, Thomas; Lenz, Matthias

2013-10-19

Lack of patient involvement in decision making has been suggested as one reason for limited treatment success. Concepts such as shared decision making may contribute to high quality healthcare by supporting patients to make informed decisions together with their physicians.A multi-component shared decision making programme on the prevention of heart attack in type 2 diabetes has been developed. It aims at improving the quality of decision-making by providing evidence-based patient information, enhancing patients' knowledge, and supporting them to actively participate in decision-making. In this study the efficacy of the programme is evaluated in the setting of a diabetes clinic. A single blinded randomised-controlled trial is conducted to compare the shared decision making programme with a control-intervention. The intervention consists of an evidence-based patient decision aid on the prevention of myocardial infarction and a corresponding counselling module provided by diabetes educators. Similar in duration and structure, the control-intervention targets nutrition, sports, and stress coping. A total of 154 patients between 40 and 69 years of age with type 2 diabetes and no previous diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease or stroke are enrolled and allocated either to the intervention or the control-intervention. Primary outcome measure is the patients' knowledge on benefits and harms of heart attack prevention captured by a standardised knowledge test. Key secondary outcome measure is the achievement of treatment goals prioritised by the individual patient. Treatment goals refer to statin taking, HbA1c-, blood pressure levels and smoking status. Outcomes are assessed directly after the counselling and at 6 months follow-up. Analyses will be carried out on intention-to-treat basis. Concurrent qualitative methods are used to explore intervention fidelity and to gain insight into implementation processes. Interventions to facilitate evidence-based shared decision

Sharing clinical decisions for multimorbidity case management using social network and open-source tools.

PubMed

Martínez-García, Alicia; Moreno-Conde, Alberto; Jódar-Sánchez, Francisco; Leal, Sandra; Parra, Carlos

2013-12-01

Social networks applied through Web 2.0 tools have gained importance in health domain, because they produce improvements on the communication and coordination capabilities among health professionals. This is highly relevant for multimorbidity patients care because there is a large number of health professionals in charge of patient care, and this requires to obtain clinical consensus in their decisions. Our objective is to develop a tool for collaborative work among health professionals for multimorbidity patient care. We describe the architecture to incorporate decision support functionalities in a social network tool to enable the adoption of shared decisions among health professionals from different care levels. As part of the first stage of the project, this paper describes the results obtained in a pilot study about acceptance and use of the social network component in our healthcare setting. At Virgen del Rocío University Hospital we have designed and developed the Shared Care Platform (SCP) to provide support in the continuity of care for multimorbidity patients. The SCP has two consecutively developed components: social network component, called Clinical Wall, and Clinical Decision Support (CDS) system. The Clinical Wall contains a record where health professionals are able to debate and define shared decisions. We conducted a pilot study to assess the use and acceptance of the SCP by healthcare professionals through questionnaire based on the theory of the Technology Acceptance Model. In March 2012 we released and deployed the SCP, but only with the social network component. The pilot project lasted 6 months in the hospital and 2 primary care centers. From March to September 2012 we created 16 records in the Clinical Wall, all with a high priority. A total of 10 professionals took part in the exchange of messages: 3 internists and 7 general practitioners generated 33 messages. 12 of the 16 record (75%) were answered by the destination health professionals

Children's participation in shared decision-making: children, adolescents, parents and healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences.

PubMed

Coyne, Imelda; Amory, Aislinn; Kiernan, Gemma; Gibson, Faith

2014-06-01

Despite decision-making featuring throughout the trajectory of cancer care, children's participation in decision-making remains an area much under-researched and complicated by conflicting opinions. This study explored children's participation in shared decision-making (SDM) from multiple perspectives from one haematology/oncology unit in Ireland. Qualitative research design was used to explore participants' experiences of children's decision-making. Interviews were conducted with children(1) aged 7-16 years (n = 20), their parents (n = 22) and healthcare professionals (n = 40). Data were managed with the aid of NVivo (version 8). Parents and children's roles in decision-making were significantly influenced by the seriousness of the illness. Cancer is a life-threatening illness and so the treatment 'had to be done'. Children were not involved in major decisions (treatment decisions) as refusal was not an option. They were generally involved in minor decisions (choices about care delivery) with the purpose of gaining their cooperation, making treatment more palatable, giving back a sense of control and building trusting relationships. These choices were termed 'small' decisions that would not compromise the child's welfare. Some adolescents were aware that choices were not 'real' decisions since they were not allowed to refuse and expressed feelings of frustration. Healthcare professionals and parents controlled the process of SDM and the children's accounts revealed that they held a minimal role. Children appeared content that adults held responsibility for the major treatment decisions. However, they desired and valued receiving information, voicing their preferences and choosing how treatments were administered to them. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Shared Knowledge for Decision-making on Environment and Health Issues in the Arctic

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Maynard, Nancy G.

2003-01-01

This paper will describe a remote sensing and GIs-based system to bring indigenous traditional knowledge together with contemporary scientific knowledge to address impacts resulting from changes in climate, environment, weather and pollution in the Arctic. As scientists and policy-makers from both indigenous and non-indigenous communities continue to build closer partnerships to address common sustainability issues such as the health impacts of climate change and anthropogenic activities, it becomes increasingly important to create shared information management systems which integrate all relevant factors for optimal information sharing and decision-making. This system is being designed to bring together remotely sensed, indigenous and other data and observations for analysis, measuring, and monitoring parameters of interest (e.g., snow cover, rainfall, temperature, ice conditions, vegetation, infrastructure, fires). A description of the system and its components as well as a preliminary application of the system in the Arctic will be presented.

The Experience of Older People in the Shared Decision-Making Process in Advanced Kidney Care.

PubMed

Thomas, Nicola; Jenkins, Karen; McManus, Breeda; Gracey, Brian

2016-01-01

Introduction . This qualitative descriptive study was designed to understand the experiences of older people (>70 years) when making a decision about renal replacement therapy. This was a coproduced study, whereby patients and carers were involved in all aspects of the research process. Methods . A Patient and Carer Group undertook volunteer and research training. The group developed the interview questions and interviewed 29 people who had commenced dialysis or made a decision not to have dialysis. Interview data were transcribed and analysed, and common themes were identified. Results . 22 men and 7 women (mean age 77.4 yrs) from two hospitals were interviewed. 18 had chosen haemodialysis, 6 peritoneal dialysis, and 5 supportive care. The majority of patients were involved in the dialysis decision. Most were satisfied with the amount of information that they received, although some identified that the quality of the information could be improved, especially how daily living can be affected by dialysis. Conclusion . Our findings show that overall older patients were involved in the dialysis decision along with their families. Our approach is innovative because it is the first time that patients and carers have been involved in a coproduced study about shared decision-making.

Does shared family background influence the impact of educational differences on early mortality?

PubMed

Søndergaard, Grethe; Mortensen, Laust H; Nybo Andersen, Anne-Marie; Andersen, Per Kragh; Dalton, Susanne Oksbjerg; Madsen, Mia; Osler, Merete

2012-10-15

The mechanisms behind social differences in mortality rates have been debated. The authors examined the extent to which shared family background and health in early life could explain the association between educational status and all-cause mortality rates using a sibling design. The study was register-based and included all individuals born in Denmark between 1950 and 1979 who had at least 1 full sibling born in the same time period (n = 1,381,436). All individuals were followed from 28 years of age until death, emigration, or December 2009. The authors used Cox regression analyses to estimate hazard ratios for mortality according to educational level. Conventional cohort and intersibling analyses were carried out and conducted separately for deaths occurring before and after the age of 45 years, respectively. The cohort analyses showed an inverse association between educational status and all-cause mortality that was strongest for males, increased with younger birth cohorts, and tended to be strongest in the analyses of death before 45 years of age. The associations were attenuated slightly in the intersibling analyses and after adjustment for serious health conditions in early life. Hence, health selection and confounding by factors shared by siblings explained only a minor part of the association between educational level and all-cause mortality.

Cancer Counseling of Low-Income Limited English Proficient Latina Women Using Medical Interpreters: Implications for Shared Decision-Making.

PubMed

Kamara, Daniella; Weil, Jon; Youngblom, Janey; Guerra, Claudia; Joseph, Galen

2018-02-01

In cancer genetic counseling (CGC), communication across language and culture challenges the model of practice based on shared decision-making. To date, little research has examined the decision-making process of low-income, limited English proficiency (LEP) patients in CGC. This study identified communication patterns in CGC sessions with this population and assessed how these patterns facilitate or inhibit the decision-making process during the sessions. We analyzed 24 audio recordings of CGC sessions conducted in Spanish via telephone interpreters at two public hospitals. Patients were referred for risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer; all were offered genetic testing. Audio files were coded by two bilingual English-Spanish researchers and analyzed using conventional content analysis through an iterative process. The 24 sessions included 13 patients, 6 counselors, and 18 interpreters. Qualitative data analyses identified three key domains - Challenges Posed by Hypothetical Explanations, Misinterpretation by the Medical Interpreter, and Communication Facilitators - that reflect communication patterns and their impact on the counselor's ability to facilitate shared decision-making. Overall, we found an absence of patient participation in the decision-making process. Our data suggest that when counseling LEP Latina patients via medical interpreter, prioritizing information with direct utility for the patient and organizing information into short- and long-term goals may reduce information overload and improve comprehension for patient and interpreter. Further research is needed to test the proposed counseling strategies with this population and to assess how applicable our findings are to other populations.

Engaging patients in health care decisions in the emergency department through shared decision-making: a systematic review.

PubMed

Flynn, Darren; Knoedler, Meghan A; Hess, Erik P; Murad, M Hassan; Erwin, Patricia J; Montori, Victor M; Thomson, Richard G

2012-08-01

Many decisions in the emergency department (ED) may benefit from patient involvement, even though this setting has been considered least conducive to shared decision-making (SDM). The objective was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the approaches, methods, and tools used to engage patients or their surrogates in SDM in the ED. Five electronic databases were searched in conjunction with contacting content experts, reviewing selected bibliographies, and conducting citation searches using the Web of Knowledge database. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies that addressed patient involvement and engagement in decision-making in the ED setting via the use of decision support interventions (DSIs), defined as decision aids or decision support designed to communicate probabilistic information on the risks and benefits of treatment options to patients as part of an SDM process. Eligible studies described and assessed at least one of the following outcomes: patient knowledge, experiences and perspectives on participating in treatment or management decisions, clinician or patient satisfaction, preference for involvement and/or degree of engagement in decision-making and treatment preferences, and clinical outcomes (e.g., rates of hospital admission/readmission, rates of medical or surgical interventions). Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methodologic quality, and outcomes. The authors also assessed the extent to which SDM interventions adhered to good practice for the presentation of information on outcome probabilities (eight probability items from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument [IPDASi]) and had comprehensive development processes. Five studies met inclusion criteria and were synthesized using a narrative approach. Each study was of satisfactory methodologic quality and used a DSI to engage patients or their surrogates in decision-making in the ED across four domains: 1) management options for

Clinical Equipoise and Shared Decision-making in Pulmonary Nodule Management. A Survey of American Thoracic Society Clinicians.